HOME Featured Stories March 2007 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

Posted by Bernice Lipkin, March 31, 2007.

The first two photos are by Fred Reifenberg. The one on the left is called Cracking and the one on the right is New Beginning. See other of his imaginative photos at
http://freifylites.blogspot.com/. The third, by Carrie Devorah, is a first ever -- handing out matzah downtown Washington D.C. Contact her at editor@carrieon.com for others of her Around Washington photos.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 31, 2007.

Pesah reminds us of the ten plagues.

James Taranto (see below) introduces us to one great current example of the eleventh: the plague of the teflon liars.

We seem this year (and last) to be beset with a plague of liars who hold high public office and/or are high-profile public figures. They lie through their teeth, with palpable transparent lies...but they either get rewarded or ignored. No one of substance or authority takes them to task. Nothing sticks. They are teflon. Coincidentally, their lies seem to always involve Israel, or Jews, or Muslims, or Muslim states, or Muslim terrorists.

Walt and Mearscheimer lied about AIPAC throughout their 68-page article last year, and got a 3/4-of-a-milliom-dollar book contract to do more of the same in 268 pags.

Jimmy Carter lied about Israel on every page of his latest book...and gets an endless stream of TV interviews where he gets to re-assert his lies and no one challenges him (of course, he has a good trick: he refuses to meet with anyone who would challenge him, and then claims that his Jewish enemies are stifling the debate).

Baker-Hamilton lied about American priorities in Iran and in Iraq, and about the role of the Arab-Israel conflict in the resolution of broader Middle East war (re-asserting the 'road to Baghdad is through Jerusalem' horse kakka)...to the accolades of the hate-America and hate-Bush crowds.

Geroge Soros lied through his teeth last week in 'On Israel, America, and AIPAC' in the New York Review of Books, creating page after page of pure screed and self-contradictory arguments to demonize AIPAC and lionize the genocidal intentions of much of the Arab world against Israel.

Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke of the Nixon Center lie about the Muslim Brotherhood, asserting in the most recent Foreign Affairs (March/April 2007, 'The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood') that this Muslim terrorist parent organization to Hamas is really democratic and moderate and peace-loving.

A Saudi enterprize near Taos, New Mexico, creates fabricated history and false narratives about the scourge of Islamic invasions and conversions at the point of the sword -- claiming that this never happened; claiming that as they stood upon the piles of corpses of their own dead and dismembered, survivors of the Muslim onslaughts of the 7th-17th centuries agreed to convert because they saw how beautiful and peaceful Islam is. And this Saudi enterprize is getting its lies published in textbooks for our kids in High Schools and colleges.

And, of course, perhaps most disconcerting of all, Muslim spokespersons lie to us in the West daily (well, almost daily somewhere or another in the West) about the 'true meaning of Jihad' ... and no one of substance bothers to point out to them that their own Arab historians, contemporaneous to the massive slaughter perpetrated by Arab invadors, wrote proudly of the huge piles of infidel skulls, gloried in the myriads beheaded; and from the mobs scurrying to convert lest they share the fate of the dead victims, these contemporaneous historians concluded that indeed Allah had chosen the Arabs to be the standard-bearers of the one true religion...via jihad.

But the obvious does not stop the teflon liars from lying, nor does it impel the audience to speak out against their egregious falsehoods.

Except for the one that James Taranto noted yesterday in his weblog Opinion Journal (OpinionJournal@wsj.com), citing Ray Gronberg's article in the Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-834412.cfm).

Zbigniew Brzezinski, during his talk at Duke University earlier this week, made the jaw-dropping assertion that there is no reason to think that a Sunni-vs-Shi'a bloodbath would result from our premature departure from Iraq, because, "..We expected that the U.S. leaving Vietnam would result in massive killings and genocide and so forth, and collapse of the dominoes in Southeast Asia...It didn't happen."

'It didn't happen'? It seems that he, and most of his audience, has forgotten the 'killing fields' of 1975, where upwards of 2,000,000 innocent Cambodians and south Vietnamese where slaughtered, and millions more fled to avoid the same fate.

However, at least in this instance, the newspaper covering Brzezinski's talk pointed out that in fact millions had been slaughtered after the American retreat ...just as was expected.

These teflon liars may be victims of some sort of 'sudden intellectual jihad syndrome' (the uncontrollable desire to lie in order to make Muslim terrorism look good), or they may be the hired guns or agents provocateurs for pro-terrorist groups (the Saudis, Iran), or they may be just good old fashioned Jew-haters who deeply hate the Jewish state because it is Jewish, and use it as the whipping boy for all of their anti-Jewish angst......

...But whatever the case, their lies may bring down western civilization, even though they themselves may be gunning only for the Jews.

PS. For more on this plague of teflon liars against Israel, see: 'The War in America Against Israel,' By Richard Baehr, in American Thinker

For more on the threat of teflon liars to western civilizaiton, see: The road to serfdom', by Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post, 3.31.07.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, March 31, 2007.

Passover. Giving is a special mitzvah -- Migdal Ohr, Israel's largest orphanage is preparing 18,000 special meals for Passover, over 4 times its normal load. To help them offset the enormous costs you can donate thru www.migdalohrusa.org



For over two decades a now ninety-six-year-old powerhouse is responsible for providing 490 families throughout Israel with their weekly chicken and meat. Local recipients "buy" what they need at Hacker and "charge" it. For needy families who live a great distance from Hacker, Hammer sends over one hundred checks in attractive cards that wish the recipients "chodesh tov," a good month. Even the stamps she chooses are decorative. By dressing up the donation, Hammer believes that the recipient will feel that he is receiving a present rather than a handout. Hammer's average weekly butcher bill amounts to $1,000. Before the Jewish holidays, it's usually $1,500. "I always work with the Hacker brothers," says Hammer, who is affectionately known as "Mrs. Chicken Lady." "I never question the bill; I trust them implicitly." Nor has she ever requested a discount from the butcher shop. "They're entitled to make a living too. If I can help them in that way while helping others at the same time, I feel twice as good!" To help, send donations to Chaya Hammer at 4 Mishmar Hagavul, Apt. 2, Jerusalem 97752 ISRAEL.

Chaya Hammer's story

Something about the young girl in front of her on line at Hacker, a butcher shop in Jerusalem, seemed familiar, although Chaya Hammer had never seen her before. Perhaps it was the empty basket slung over an arm covered by a threadbare sweater sleeve or the lank braids hanging alongside a too-thin face? "She reminds me of myself," realized the older woman in surprise, as her mind whirled back to the distant memories of herself as a young new immigrant in the Promised Land.

"Next!" The booming voice of the butcher interrupted Hammer's reverie. Seeing who was next, the butcher reached under the counter, extracted a bag filled with chicken fat and skins and handed it to the girl. Thanking him, she turned and left. "Goodness! " Hammer recalls exclaiming to the butcher as he filled her weekly order. "That family must have a lot of dogs or cats to feed!"

"Actually, they have no pets at all," he replied.

"The father is on dialysis, unable to work, and the mother has her hands full trying to care for a large family on her own. We have been giving them meat on credit for a long time already, but their bill now exceeds 10, 000 lirot, and we simply cannot afford to keep it up. Now we save all the chicken parts that no one wants; at least this way they can have soup and cholent for their Shabbat meal." This was too much for Hammer to hear. "From now on, give that family chicken and ground meat every week -- and put it on my bill!" she said.

Some time later, the butcher asked her if she was interested in taking on another needy family. It never occurred to Hammer to refuse.

Over two decades later, this ninety-six-year-old powerhouse is responsible for providing 490 families throughout Israel with their weekly chicken and meat. Local recipients "buy" what they need at Hacker and "charge" it. For needy families who live a great distance from Hacker, Hammer sends over one hundred checks in attractive cards that wish the recipients "chodesh tov," a good month. Even the stamps she chooses are decorative. By dressing up the donation, Hammer believes that the recipient will feel that he is receiving a present rather than a handout. Hammer's average weekly butcher bill amounts to $1,000. Before the Jewish holidays, it's usually $1,500. "I always work with the Hacker brothers," says Hammer, who is affectionately known as "Mrs. Chicken Lady." "I never question the bill; I trust them implicitly." Nor has she ever requested a discount from the butcher shop. "They'reentitled to make a living too. If I can help them in that way while helping others at the same time, I feel twice as good!"

Generally, Hammer sends her "clients" directly to Hacker, although there are times when the brothers bring her attention to specific cases. The local families have no idea of the role she plays in their lives. "I prefer it that way," says Hammer. "I like the fact that I can go to the butcher, stand behind someone I know I' helping, yet she has no clue who I am." For those outside the local area, she has no choice but to reveal her identity.

Hammer's cheerful mood dissipates as she shares some of the stories of those she helps. Pulling out an old newspaper, she points to a photograph of a young woman staring forlornly at the camera. Life is a daily struggle for this woman, who was born without arms or legs. After tracking her down, Hammer began sending her a monthly check, and calls her occasionally, just to say hello. She has no plans to meet the woman though. "I think it might embarrass her. [The money is] easier to take when you are anonymous."

In 2000, when terrorists murdered a young couple, Hammer took over some of the financial responsibility for caring for their eight orphans. When "Shlomo," a father of fifteen, died after falling down four flights of stairs, the widow and her children were "adopted" by the "chicken lady." People have been known to ring her doorbell, hand her an envelope with money and escape before she can even say thank you. "Miriam" and her father have been receiving a monthly stipend since Hammer learned of their hardship. The crippled man would sit on street corners in Tel Aviv, playing the accordion in order to feed himself and his daughter. Not only did Hammer take care of them financially, but upon learning of Miriam's dream to be a professional violinist, she got hold of a secondhand violin, had it fixed and then personally traveled to the city where Miriam lived to deliver it.

Donors to Hammer's "chicken fund" come from all walks of life "Jews and non-Jews, religious and unaffiliated. Most of the donors hear about Hammer's efforts via word of mouth, or through articles. People have been known to ring her doorbell, hand her an envelope with money and escape before she can even say thank you. No one has ever requested a receipt; donors know that every penny goes directly to those who need it. Hammer personally pays for the hundreds of stamps needed monthly. "I, too, want to donate to this worthwhile cause," she explains.

Each donor receives a thank-you letter. As a concession to Hammer's arthritis, first-time donors now receive a form letter, which is constantly updated. Even so, Hammer always tries to add a few personal words at the bottom, and always signs the letters herself. Repeat donors get handwritten letters. No stranger to poverty herself, Hammer knows what it feels like to go to bed hungry. It is this memory that gives her the strength to persist in her mission. "I picture the children's faces, remember the hunger and can't rest until I've done something to help," she says. "Hashem sends me the strength because He knows I'm trying to care for His children."

The oldest of three children, Hammer was born in Vinograd, Ukraine. "We were rich back then," she reminisces. "My grandfather and father would buy eggs from the local farmers, and send them to a brother near Kiev to resell them in town. After we miraculously survived three pogroms, my family managed to escape, crossing the frozen Dnestr River into Romania. There were forty-two in the group, eleven of whom were children. I was only ten years old."

At this point in her story, tears well up in her eyes. "My Ima fell in the deep snow, and my father turned back to help her up. The smuggler guide would not let him go to her! He forced us on, leaving my Ima in the deep, cold snow, all alone in a harsh foreign land " she without us, us without our Ima. It was many, many months before we learned what had become of her. "Soon after, we were caught by the Romanian authorities and thrown into prison, adults and children alike. For five long months, we received nothing more than a small ration of bread and water daily. Eventually, word of our imprisonment trickled out, and the local Jewish community managed to arrange our release. We finally found our Ima in a hospital, alive but ill.

"After arduous travels, we made it to Israel, where we lived in a tent. Between the ages of ten and fourteen, I knew hunger firsthand, going to bed hungry almost every night." Hammer's mother never fully regained her strength; she contracted tuberculosis. Hoping to find a cure for their mother's illness, the family moved to the United States. Nevertheless, at the age of thirty-four, Hammer's mother died. "An eventual return to Israel remained my priority; so much so, that it was one of three conditions I set before agreeing to Ephraim Hammer's marriage proposal," says Hammer, who lived in Los Angeles. ("The other two conditions? He had to agree that we would speak only Hebrew between ourselves, and [that he] would teach me how to drive his Ford!)

"Ephraim and I took numerous teaching jobs, working mornings, afternoons and evenings in order to save money as quickly as possible, yet it was not until our three daughters had established their own families that we were able to return to Israel. Ephraim always encouraged me with all my projects, and although he passed away twenty years ago, before the 'chicken business' really grew, he took it to heart as much as I did."

Eventually, Hammer's daughters also made it to Israel, and now, says Hammer, five generations of her family live in the country. Winding down her story, she gets up and fondly straightens an award that hangs on her wall. It's the coveted Yakir Yerushalayim award given to those who have made a significant contribution to the good of Jerusalem's citizens. In 1999, Hammer received the award from then-Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert "Despite all those I've helped, I still can't rest," she sighs.

"I [have] hundreds' still calling for food." It's this thought that keeps Chaya Hammer going.

To help, send donations to Chaya Hammer at 4 Mishmar Hagavul, Apt. 2, Jerusalem 97752 ISRAEL.

"I stand up tonight for the millions of Evangelical Christians to deliver this message ISRAEL, YOU ARE NOT ALONE." Pastor John Hagee AIPAC 2007, Washington DC

Pastor John Hagee, Founder and Senior Pastor, Cornerstone Church, San Antonio TX
Transcribed from notes of Janet Lehr, Israel Lives and Jerusalem Newswire 2002-2006 www.jnewswire.com

"Good evening dear friends of Israel. You are the finest and most efficient advocacy organization in Washington DC. We meet at a difficult time in world history. When it seems that the whole world is against Israel, you search for friends. Dore Gold says, the US is a Tower of Babel; and Middle East Chairs are sponsored by the Saudis; go to book stores and see a slanderous title by a past president of the United States and they feel very much alone."

"I stand up tonight for the millions of Evangelical Christians to deliver this message ISRAEL, YOU ARE NOT ALONE."

"It's a new day in America," he cried.

"The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awakened. There are 50 million Christian Zionists across America consider the Jewish people the apple of God's eye; the chosen people; a cherished people." "The root of Christianity is Jewish. What we have in common is far greater than what has separated us over the years." Hagee said CUFI was spreading quickly across the United States, its goal being to ensure "that Congress knows that the matter of Israel is no longer just a Jewish issue."

"It is a Christian-Jewish issue from this day forward." Speaking to the megalomanic rantings and actions of Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hagee said it was imperative that "we must stop Iran's nuclear threat and stop it now."

"I have been saying, it is 1938. We must stop Iran's threat. The only way to win a war is to make sure it never starts."

"My answer: Do not threaten America; do not threaten Israel. When Pharoah threatened Israel he became fish food in the Red Sea. You may be talking about your demise when you speak about 'passing away in a sudden storm', not Israel's."

"There will never be another Holocaust, not on our watch and never again."

"The only way to win a nuclear war," he stressed, "is to make certain it never starts." As far as Israel and the nations were concerned, the only real truth pertaining to them was to be found in the pages of the Bible, in which God warned that He would bless those who bless Israel and curse him who curses Israel.

Those threatened judgments, Hagee said, are "very real." "Where are the nations that have persecuted the Jewish people," he asked, listing Pharaoh and his army, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Ottoman Empire and "that goose-stepping lunatic Adolf Hitler and his Nazi hordes?"

All were "historic footnotes in the bone yard of human history." As for Israel and the Jewish people, "they are alive and well. They are thriving. They are prospering. They are growing. Even in the day of adversity they are still going forward."

Beyond the threat from Iran, something else concerns me. I believe there is another threat, to parcel out part of Israel, in the EU, in the UN, and in parts of the US.

The Nazi beast smelled the appeaser and ate Chezkoslavakia and swallowed most of Europe.

We are told, if we want Syria to stop, if we want women in Saudia Arabia to drive, we must give up land. If we want the sun to rise in the East and set in the West we must give up land. The problem is Israel has no partner for peace. The problem is the failure of moderates in Islam and the Arab world. If moderate Arabs feel murdering Christians and Jews is wrong, stand up and speak. We welcome you, Stand up and Speak.

America should not pressure Israel to give up land. They must not pressure Israel to divide Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people, now and forever. It must remain united under Jewish control now and forever.

It is not what Christians say or what Jews say, truth is what the Torah says.

Even in these days of adversity where is Israel? The Jewish people are prospering and going forward. Israel was miraculously created on May 15, 1948.

"Israel lives," Hagee proclaimed, his voice rising and his hand stabbing the air in front of him. "Shout it from the housetop: Israel lives!

Let every Islamic terrorist group hear it: Israel lives!
Let every tin horn dictator in the Middle East hear it; Israel lives!
Let it be heard in the halls of the UN: Israel lives!
Let it echo down the marble halls of the presidential palace in Iran: Israel lives!
Let it ring in the terrorist camps of Osama bin Laden: Israel lives!
Israel Lives!
Israel Lives!
Israel lives!"

"Jews have outlasted pogroms -- Long after the crises of Iran the flag of Israel will be flying over Jerusalem. Christians believe we gave them the word of G-d. If you take away the Jewish existence from Christianity there is no Christianity. But, Judaism doesn't need Christianity to explain their existence. "

Answering the often-asked question of why Christians support Israel, Hagee said it was because Christians believe that they owe "a debt of gratitude" to the Jewish people. "You gave us the Word of God. You gave us the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. You gave us the prophets. [You gave us ] the first family of Christianity Mary, Joseph, and Jesus; the Apostle... " Hagee "humbly ask[ed] forgiveness of the Jewish people... for the deafening silence of Christianity in your greatest hour of need, during the Holocaust.

"We were not there. We cannot change the past. But together we can shape the future," he said.

Ending his message, the Texan declared: "Let the word go forth from Washington DC tonight: There is a new beginning in America between Christians and Jews.

"We pledge to God and to the Jewish people to fulfill the words of the prophet Isaiah: 'For Zion's sake I will not hold my peace and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest. You who make mention of the Lord do not keep silent and give the LORD no rest until He makes Jerusalem the praise of all the earth.'"

"I believe 2007 is a year of destiny, a war of good and evil."

"I close with Winston Churchill's words,"

"In the dark days of WWII, you ask what is our aim,
VICTORY AT ALL COST, however long and hard the road may be.
VICTORY in our time
VICTORY for the US and Israel
And G-d bless all of you."

Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily e-mail called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@veredart.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Milton Fried, March 31, 2007.

This is from the USA Wake UP organization

The threat of a nuclear holocaust within our borders has never been more imminent than it is today. No longer is the threat of a long range missile reaching our shores our single most major concern. In today's world, a single individual, or small group, could bring this country to its knees with the detonation of a small nuclear device, or through the release of a biological weapon. Our porous borders, and free society, make it easy for these type(s) of terrorists to enter the country and carry out their destruction. Whether it be smuggling in a nuclear/biological weapon, or simply launching one from a fishing trawler, or freighter, via a short range missile, our defenses may be too weak, or inept, to prevent such an attack. Or, worse yet, prevent multiple attacks.

A more recent map is available at
http://standeyo.com/Our_Books/PPusa/next.htm. Deyo notes, "Terrorists are a very real and growing threat in America and to American interests around the world. It should be assumed these are not the only cell locations within the US and that they are subject to change."

Contact Dr. Milton Fried at docmiltfried@mindspring.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Singer, March 31, 2007.

Jordan's King Abdullah is at it again repeating the mantra of the Arab League of which Jordan is a foundation member:

"The principal problem in the region is the Palestinian issue and, if it is not solved, it will be impossible to solve other problems." [Jerusalem Post 2 March 2007]

Palestine comprised an area of about 120000 square kilometres, which has now been divided into two sovereign States -- Israel (22000 square kilometres) and Jordan (92000 square kilometres) -- plus an area of 6000 square kilometres called the West Bank and Gaza in which statehood still remains undeclared.

The Arab League has called for full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank and Israel's acceptance of an independent Arab State there with East Jerusalem as its capitol.

This means

(i) the expulsion of some 400000 Jews presently living in the West Bank who have lived there for all or part of the last 40 years.

(ii) the perpetual abandonment by Jews of all claims to reconstitute their national home in the West Bank and Gaza as conferred on them by the League of Nations and confirmed by the United Nations.

(iii) The severance of the Jews from their biblical heartland where they lived as an independent nation long before any Arabs came to the area as foreign conquerors and occupiers seven centuries after the birth of Jesus.

The Arab League has shown no indication of any readiness to abandon this "all or nothing approach" by agreeing to the Jews retaining and living in a portion of this disputed territory whilst the remainder and its Arab residents becomes part of Jordan as it was between 1948 and 1967.

A second Arab State in Palestine, which has been propounded for the last 20 years, is as ridiculous as suggesting a second Jewish State in Palestine.

Two peoples -- the Jews and the Arabs -- need two States in former Palestine not three.

Whilst the Arab League persists with this intransigent attitude there is indeed a problem, but one solely of the Arab League's choosing.

The Arab League presently is made up of 22 member States covering almost 14 million square kilometres in which almost 320 million Arabs reside.

It is incredulous and completely false to continually advocate that a dispute over 6000 square kilometres housing 3 million Arabs must first be settled before all the other problems in the region can be resolved.

Yet this is precisely what the Arab League has sold to the Quartet - America, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union. -- and they have swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Besotted by this tale that could have come from the Arabian Nights, the Quartet has thrown billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours in aid and diplomatic manoeuvring in trying to solve this problem. They have not got the disputants to even move off the starting blocks.

Meanwhile the Arab League has allowed far more serious bushfires to rage out of control in some of its' own member States, that threaten to eventually consume the Arab League itself.

In fact some League members such as Syria are actively helping to fan the fires by providing arms, money and safe transit for terrorists to bring down the Governments of other member States where life is anything but pleasant.

The League's biggest problem involves a non Arab state -- Iran -- as it seeks leadership of the Islamic world through the supremacy of Shia Islam as the dominant Islamic religion over Sunni Islam , the religion of the majority of the Arabs.

This is the clash of ideologies that must first take place before militant Islam can hope to achieve its aim of making Islam the world's dominant religion.

Islam can only have one leader not two to achieve this objective. Will that leader be Shia or Sunni?

The Arab League's failure to prevent Iran interfering in the affairs of Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and Iraq has given Iran and the Shiites easy entre into the Arab World and put the Arab League's very future existence under serious threat.

The white ants are on the march and the Arab edifice is in danger of total collapse.

Perhaps it is time for the Quartet to tell the Arab League to start solving the problems affecting their own member States such as Lebanon, Iraq, Algeria, Somalia and Sudan where the lives of 100 million people are at risk every day and where the sight of Moslem blowing up Moslem and mosque after mosque being bombed is unbelievable

The Quartet should also put the Palestinian question on the backburner and focus their attention, effort and political clout (if any is left) on the real and pressing issues outlined above.

Creating another Arab State on 6000 square kilometres of land when you already have 22 Arab States on 14 million square kilometres of land reminds me of the glutton who was given 99.5% of the apple pie but still was not satisfied and demanded the rest.

He ended up with severe indigestion.

[The writer acknowledges Wikipedia as the source for the statistics appearing in this article]

David Singer is an Australian lawyer and convenor of Jordan is Palestine International, an organisation calling for sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza to be allocated between Israel and Jordan as the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine.

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, March 31, 2007.

Is it racist to condemn fanaticism?

Once I was held captive in Kabul. I was the bride of a charming, seductive and Westernised Afghan Muslim whom I met at an American college. The purdah I experienced was relatively posh but the sequestered all-female life was not my cup of chai -- nor was the male hostility to veiled, partly veiled and unveiled women in public.

When we landed in Kabul, an airport official smoothly confiscated my US passport. "Don't worry, it's just a formality," my husband assured me. I never saw that passport again. I later learnt that this was routinely done to foreign wives -- perhaps to make it impossible for them to leave. Overnight, my husband became a stranger. The man with whom I had discussed Camus, Dostoevsky, Tennessee Williams and the Italian cinema became a stranger. He treated me the same way his father and elder brother treated their wives: distantly, with a hint of disdain and embarrassment.

In our two years together, my future husband had never once mentioned that his father had three wives and 21 children. Nor did he tell me that I would be expected to live as if I had been reared as an Afghan woman. I was supposed to lead a largely indoor life among women, to go out only with a male escort and to spend my days waiting for my husband to return or visiting female relatives, or having new (and very fashionable) clothes made.

In America, my husband was proud that I was a natural-born rebel and free thinker. In Afghanistan, my criticism of the treatment of women and of the poor rendered him suspect, vulnerable. He mocked my horrified reactions. But I knew what my eyes and ears told me. I saw how poor women in chadaris were forced to sit at the back of the bus and had to keep yielding their place on line in the bazaar to any man.

I saw how polygamous, arranged marriages and child brides led to chronic female suffering and to rivalry between co-wives and half-brothers; how the subordination and sequestration of women led to a profound estrangement between the sexes -- one that led to wife-beating, marital rape and to a rampant but hotly denied male "prison"-like homosexuality and pederasty; how frustrated, neglected and uneducated women tormented their daughter-in-laws and female servants; how women were not allowed to pray in mosques or visit male doctors (their husbands described the symptoms in their absence).

Individual Afghans were enchantingly courteous -- but the Afghanistan I knew was a bastion of illiteracy, poverty, treachery and preventable diseases. It was also a police state, a feudal monarchy and a theocracy, rank with fear and paranoia. Afghanistan had never been colonised. My relatives said: "Not even the British could occupy us." Thus I was forced to conclude that Afghan barbarism was of their own making and could not be attributed to Western imperialism.

Long before the rise of the Taleban, I learnt not to romanticise Third World countries or to confuse their hideous tyrants with liberators. I also learnt that sexual and religious apartheid in Muslim countries is indigenous and not the result of Western crimes -- and that such "colourful tribal customs" are absolutely, not relatively, evil. Long before al-Qaeda beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan and Nicholas Berg in Iraq, I understood that it was dangerous for a Westerner, especially a woman, to live in a Muslim country. In retrospect, I believe my so-called Western feminism was forged in that most beautiful and treacherous of Eastern countries.

Nevertheless, Western intellectual-ideologues, including feminists, have demonised me as a reactionary and racist "Islamophobe" for arguing that Islam, not Israel, is the largest practitioner of both sexual and religious apartheid in the world and that if Westerners do not stand up to this apartheid, morally, economically and militarily, we will not only have the blood of innocents on our hands; we will also be overrun by Sharia in the West. I have been heckled, menaced, never-invited, or disinvited for such heretical ideas -- and for denouncing the epidemic of Muslim-on-Muslim violence for which tiny Israel is routinely, unbelievably scapegoated.

However, my views have found favour with the bravest and most enlightened people alive. Leading secular Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents -- from Egypt, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, Syria and exiles from Europe and North America -- assembled for the landmark Islamic Summit Conference in Florida and invited me to chair the opening panel on Monday.

According to the chair of the meeting, Ibn Warraq: "What we need now is an age of enlightenment in the Islamic world. Without critical examination of Islam, it will remain dogmatic, fanatical and intolerant and will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality, originality and truth." The conference issued a declaration calling for such a new "Enlightenment". The declaration views "Islamophobia" as a false allegation, sees a "noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine" and "demands the release of Islam from its captivity to the ambitions of power-hungry men".

Now is the time for Western intellectuals who claim to be antiracists and committed to human rights to stand with these dissidents. To do so requires that we adopt a universal standard of human rights and abandon our loyalty to multicultural relativism, which justifies, even romanticises, indigenous Islamist barbarism, totalitarian terrorism and the persecution of women, religious minorities, homosexuals and intellectuals. Our abject refusal to judge between civilisation and barbarism, and between enlightened rationalism and theocratic fundamentalism, endangers and condemns the victims of Islamic tyranny.

Ibn Warraq has written a devastating work that will be out by the summer. It is entitled Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said' s Orientalism. Will Western intellectuals also dare to defend the West?

Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at the City University of New York.

This article appeared March 7, 2007 on The Times Online.

For more on Chesler's life in Afghanistan, see "How Afghan Captivity Shaped My Feminism," http://www.think-israel.org/chesler.afghan.html, Nov-Dec, 2005.

To Go To Top

Posted by Daniel Mandel, March 31, 2007.

Britain led the world in abolishing slavery in 1833, a generation before Americans fought a civil war to end the practice and well ahead of most other societies. Thirty years earlier, in 1807, the British parliament had already made it unlawful for any British subject to capture and transport slaves. The bicentenary of this watershed was observed this week.

In short, Britain should yield to none in its pride in having led the way on slavery and having served as a moral force in world affairs. Instead, as Melanie Phillips recounts in London's Daily Mail, Britain has made the 1807 declaration of slavery's abolition an exercise in self-abasement, a commemoration of British guilt for its practice rather than a celebration of its abolition.

But this is scarcely new to 21st century Britain. 2005 was the bicentenary of Lord Nelson's victory over the Franco-Spanish fleet at the battle of Trafalgar, No-one can deny Trafalgar's finality and significance, coming at the end of a two-year invasion threat to England posed by Napoleonic France, which was then busily subduing the European continent, with England soon to be facing the peril bereft of allies -- an early echo of Churchill's Britain standing alone in 1940.

Yet to judge by the sometimes curiously anemic celebration of this peerless victory, Britain was similarly embarrassed. The Franco-Spanish defeat, which was its only object, was assiduously played down in deference to the sensitivities of both countries. Instead, a reenactment in May 2005 was produced of "an early 19th century sea battle" between a "blue fleet" and a "red fleet," leaving one to wonder what historical distinction inspired the effort.

Britain's psychological insecurity has practical ramifications. As Phillips rightly laments, the Britain that as recently as 1982 dispatched half the Royal Navy to reverse Argentina's invasion of the Falklands has this week responded with tepidity and indecision to the Iranian seizure of 15 Royal Marines in international waters. Three years ago, six Royal Marines and two sailors were seized in the same locality and held for three days before being released. This time, Britain can expect any release to come with a hijacker's extortionate demand -- the release of five Iranian Revolutionary Guards who were captured in Iraq by American troops earlier this year. As Phillips says, Nelson may well be "revolving in his grave -- the more so now that the Royal Navy, which under his command would have dealt with such acts of war with summary audacity, is to be largely moth-balled.

Contact Daniel Mandel at daniel.mandel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 31, 2007.

Steven Erlanger's "Olmert Rejects Right of Return for Palestinians" (New York Times, 3.30.07) omits information that is critical to understanding PM Olmert's recent comments on Arab refugees.

1.) Who caused the Refugee Problem? Erlanger should have mentioned that the UN resolution 181 of Nov. 29, 1947 called for the creation of two states on the west side of the Jordan River: a state for the Jews and a state for the Arabs. Had the Arab world accepted this partition, not only would there have been no refugee problem, but there would have been a state for the Palestinians since 1948.

Moreover, an unimpeachable witness to the creation of this problem tells us, in no uncertain terms, that it was the Egyptian army which drove 300,000 Palestinians from their homes in southern Israel, herded them in to concentration camps (which we today call refugee camps) in the Gaza Strip, and kept them there under force of arms (Yasir Arafat: Terrorist or Peacemaker, Arafat's authorized biography, by Alan Hart).

Some today still say that even before the Arab nations attacked Israel, many Arabs fled or were forced to flee by Jewish fighters. But there are literally dozens of articles in Arab and western newspapers dating from 1949 until the 1980's, in which Arab and western spokespersons tell us that it was not the Jews but the Arab leaders, including the Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who told Arabs to flee (see my book, Big Lies, for a detailed list of these articles), with the expectation that once all the Jews where annihilated, the Arabs would come back and take both their land and the land that belonged to the Jews.

2.) Why could the refugees not come back after the war? Erlanger writes: "After the war, Israel barred their return." This is incorrect. After the war Israel offered a negotiated return of refugees in the context of peace talks. The Arabs refused: no recognition, no negotiations, no peace. Israel tried to negotiate directly with refugee representatives at the Rhodes Armistice conference in 1949; and Arab forces physically prevented any meeting. The inability of refugees to return to their homes is a function exclusively of Arab obduracy regarding peace with Israel.

3.) What about UN Security Council Resolution 194, December 1948? Resolution 194 does not mention Palestinians. It mentions refugees. The authors were aware of the fact that by the end of 1948, hundreds of thousands of Jews were being driven from their homes throughout the Muslim world, from Morocco to Iran. These Jews were innocent civilians, non-combatants, and citizens of their Muslim host countries. Many could date their ancestry in those countries from as early as the 6th century BC -- 1,200 years before Mohammed!

They were forced to flee, some with barely the clothes on their backs, by Arab governments outraged that Jews in Israel had miraculously defeated a vastly larger Arab army, and thus brought great humiliation upon the Arab world. UN resolution 194, fairly and even-handedly, sought the resolution of both refugee problems, in the context of peace negotiations. But the Arab refusal to agree to any semblance of peace made any just and reasonable resolution of both refugee problems impossible.

Meanwhile, with no help from the rest of the world, Israel took in 90% of these nearly 900,000 Jewish refugees, and integrated them in to the fledgling Jewish state.

The Arab rejection of the UN partition plan (UN resolution 181), and the subsequent invasion of Israel by 7 Arab armies, is what caused the refugee problem. The Arab rejection of UN resolution 194, any possibility of peace with Israel, is the reason that today's millions of descendents of the original 725,000 Arab refugees languish in grinding poverty in refugee camps, supported by UNRWA, with an annual budget of billions of dollars (most from the USA and Europe).

This being the case, the full onus of culpability for the resolution of this problem rests squarely, and solely, upon the Arab nations which caused, and maintain, the problem.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 31, 2007.

We must support Paul Williams in his battle against terror and injustice
......you may be next!

This was written by Carmela Fragomeni (cfragomeni@thespec.com) and it appeared in The Hamilton Spectator.

McMaster University, fed up with accusations of harbouring terrorists and lax security at its nuclear reactor, is suing an American author for $2 million for defamation and libel.

The suit alleges Paul Williams, in his 2006 book The Dunces of Doomsday, falsely says McMaster mismanaged university security, leading to the infiltration by terrorist operatives and the theft of nuclear material for bomb-making.

It also cites radio interviews where Williams said McMaster's licence was revoked for losing 180 pounds of radioactive material.

The allegations have yet to be proven in court.

The Canada Nuclear Safety Commission has investigated and states no nuclear material is missing, and says McMaster has never lost its reactor licence.

Williams, a journalist from Scranton, Penn., has written books on Islamic terrorism and has started a legal defence fund.

His statement of defence claims a moral duty to notify the public and says a Mac student and former student were among 17 suspected terrorists arrested in June. It also says his book is thoroughly researched, including interviews with authorities about Mac's security problems.

The lawsuit originally included WND Books/Cumberland House Publishing and its publicist, but that part was settled out of court with a retraction of a media release about the book that was posted on the publisher's website.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, March 30, 2007.

Repeat it long enough and it will catch on: On the eve of Passover -- the Jewish holiday representing the Jewish 'From Bondage To Freedom', transformation, let us recite: the Paradigm Of Two-State Solution Is DEAD And Has Been Removed From The Negotiations Table In Israel As Well As The International Policies.

This was written by Yoram Ettinger and it was filed March 27, 2007 as Straight From The Jerusalem Cloakroom #202

Palestinian State supporters are advised to revisit the very long traditional Passover hymn of DA'YE'NOU ("It would suffice"): "How many good qualities has G-D bestowed upon us? If G-D had only delivered us from Egypt, and had not plagued the Egyptians, it would suffice", etc.).

Enclosed you'll find a paraphrased edition of DA'YE'NOU, addressing the proposed Palestinian State.

The Proposed Palestinian State -- a 2007 edition of Passover's DA'YE'NOU

How many assumptions have the Palestinian State Supporters (PSS) bestowed upon us?

1. If the PSS had ONLY assumed that snatching the PLO (in 1993) from the jaws of oblivion in Mideast terrorist camps, installing the PLO onto hilltops overlooking the door steps of its intended victim (Israel), arming and training the Palestinians, rewarding the PLO with a Nobel Peace Prize and with frequent access to the White House, and showering upon the Palestinians a multi-billion dollar aid-package, would pave the road to A MODERATE PALESTINIAN STATE AND PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE WITH ISRAEL, DA'YE'NOU (it would suffice);

2. If the PSS had ONLY assumed that the resuscitation of the peace process required overlooking the correlation between expanded Palestinian sovereignty and exacerbated Palestinian terrorism, while sweeping under the carpet the TRACK RECORD OF THE ABU-MAZEN/ARAFAT PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY since its inception (rejoicing in 9/11, naming central sites after Iraqi and Palestinian terrorists, systematic violation of commitments, virulent hate-education, all time high conventional terrorism, becoming role-model of homicide bombing), DA'YE'NOU;

3. If the PSS had ONLY assumed that the proposed Palestinian State would be less violent than the ARAFAT/ABU-MAZEN SUBVERSIVE AND TREACHEROUS TRACK RECORD in Egypt (early 1950s), Syria (1960s), Jordan (1968-1970), Lebanon (1970-1982) and Kuwait (spearheading the 1990 Iraq's invasion), which sparked civil wars, bloodshed and massive expulsion, DA'YE'NOU;

4. If the PSS had ONLY assumed that the establishment of a Palestinian State would resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, ignoring the fact that NONE OF THE ARAB-ISRAELI WARS HAS BEEN TRIGGERED BY THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE (e.g. the 1948/9 War was fought by the Arab countries at the expense of the Palestinians, hence the Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of Judea, Samaria and Gaza respectively), and that neither the 1982 Israel-PLO war in Lebanon, nor the 1987-92 1st Intifadah, nor the 2000-2006 2nd Intifadah ignited Arab-Israeli wars, DA'YE'NOU;

5. If the PSS had ONLY assumed that the Palestinian issue constitutes a crown jewel of Arab priorities, and that the establishment of a Palestinian State would sooth Arab leaders, thus disregarding the fact that ARABS HAVE NEVER SHED BLOOD FOR PALESTINIANS, BUT HAVE SHED MUCH PALESTINIAN BLOOD, that pro-Palestinian Arab rhetoric has been matched by anti-Palestinian Arab actions, that the meager Arab financial assistance to the Palestinians is dwarfed by Western assistance, that Arabs consider Palestinians to be a potentially subversive element, DA'YE'NOU;

6. If the PSS had ONLY assumed that the establishment of a Palestinian State would defuse Middle East turbulence, failing to realize that a one century old (Palestinian) problem cannot be a root cause for 13 century old (inter-Arab, inter-Muslim, Islamic terrorism) problems, that THE ARAB/PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI CONFLICT HAS NEVER BEEN "THE" MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT, and that Iran's and Iraq's megalomaniac aspirations, Al-Qaeda Islamic fanaticism, the Iran-Iraq conflict, Syrian regional terrorism, Islamic assaults on conservative Arab regimes and Sunni-Shite conflicts have preceded -- and have raged independent of -- the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict, DA'YE'NOU;

7. If the PSS had ONLY assumed that a Palestinian State would diminish Islamic terrorism, turning a blind eye to a 13 century old tradition of Islamic terrorism and to the fact that -- IRRESPECTIVE OF ISRAEL'S EXISTENCE AND THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE -- Islamic terrorism has recently plagued Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Russia, Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Turkey, Scandinavia, Holland, France, England, Spain and the US, DA'YE'NOU;

8. If the PSS had ONLY assumed that a Palestinian State would moderate anti-US Islamic terrorism, ignoring the fact that the PA has become the largest terrorist base in the Middle East and the role model of homicide bombing, that ANTI-AMERICAN ISLAMIC TERRORISM HAS PEAKED SINCE THE 1993 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY AND WHILE WASHINGTON APPEASED THE ARABS and/or pressured Israel (1983 -- Lebanon, 1993 -- 1st Twin Tower, 1995/6 -- Saudi Arabia, 1998 -- Kenya Tanzania, 2000 -- Aden and the 2000 preparations for 9/11), DA'YE'NOU;

9. If the PSS had ONLY assumed that a Palestinian State would advance western interests in the Middle East, brushing aside its LETHAL EFFECT UPON JORDAN'S HASHEMITE REGIME, its energizing impact on rogue regimes and on terrorist organizations, its close ties with Iran and pro-Saddam and pro-Bin-Laden elements, its alliance with Russia and China, its corrupt and repressive (mostly anti-Christian) track record, DA'YE'NOU (it would suffice);

10. If the PSS had ONLY assumed that the establishment of a Palestinian State and Israel's security are mutually-inclusive, ignoring the track record of the PA/PLO/Hamas and the INDISPENSABILITY OF THE MOUNTAIN RIDGES OF JUDEA & SAMARIA (the "Golan Heights" of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Israel's 9-15 mile wide sliver along the Mediterranean) to Israel's security, DA'YE'NOU;

11. If the PSS had ONLY assumed that the establishment of a Palestinian State would spare Israel a demographic calamity, while ignoring the FALSE 70% INFLATION OF THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF PALESTINIANS IN JUDEA & SAMARIA, the grave inconsistencies in Palestinian demographic statistics, the dramatic decline in the Arab-Jewish fertility gap from 6 children to 1 child, the 36% increase in annual Jewish births since 1995, while the number of annual Arab births has stagnated, as documented by the American-Israel Demographic Research Group (www.aidrg.com), DA'YE'NOU;

12. If the PSS had ONLY assumed that Palestinians deserve a state alongside the Jewish State, while being oblivious of the fact that geographically, historically and demographically the core of Jordan is Palestinian, hence the ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECOND PALESTINIAN STATE -- and the 23rd Arab state -- would be AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ONLY JEWISH STATE, DA'YE'NOU;

How many more assumptions -- made by Palestinian State supporters (PSS)-must be crashed against the rocks of Middle East reality, before we realize that THE PROPOSED PALESTINIAN STATE WOULD EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM AND NOT ADVANCE THE SOLUTION, and that the proposed Palestinian State and regional stability, peaceful coexistence, Western interests and Israel's existence CONSTITUTE AN OXYMORON?!

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 30, 2007.
To the Editor,

Rachelle Marshall's 'Hamas and Israel' in today's Palo Alto Daily News (3.30.07) is utterly breathtaking in the depth and breadth of its ignorance. There are errors of fact in every sentence. Space limitations require our looking at only the most egregious.

She asserts that all the Palestinians want is a nation of their own. This may be true. But why then did they twice elect leaders who in word and deed have made it clear for decades that their sole purpose is the total destruction of Israel and genocide of its Jews?

Moreover, the UK, the UN, the USA, and Israel have made a total of 15 offers of nationhood to the Palestinian people since 1937. Every offer has been met with rejection, violence, murder, terrorism and war...and an endless relentless diatribe of hatred and genocide and destruction. If all they wanted was their state, they could have had it many times over. But the Palestinian people have chosen, and still follow, the leaders who preach the destruction of Israel. There are no leaders without followers.

Contrary to Marshall's assertion, Hamas has indeed promised many times to annihilate Israel's Jews. Its foundation document, the Hamas Covenant, mentions this promise in four different places. And the goal is not just Israel's Jews, but the genocide of Jews world-wide!

Contrary to Marshall's assertion, Israel has made many concessions and offers of more, in exchange for peace. Most recently, Israel unilaterally and unconditionally ceded the Gaza Strip, destroyed 17 Israeli villages, and rendered 9,000 Jews homeless in order to make a galactically generous peace offer to the Palestinians. And Hamas' response was their vociferous declaration that terrorism has wrought this miraculous victory, so let's do more terrorism in the West Bank.

Contrary to Marshall's assertion, there is no reason to believe that relinquishing more territory will bring peace. The Israeli retreat from the Gaza Strip brought more Hamas terrorism and more Qassam rockets in one year than in the previous five years. The Israeli retreat from Lebanon (5.24.2000) brought 6 years of Hezbollah's Qatyusha and Shehab rockets. And the Israeli elections of 2006, in which the Kadima party won on a platform of ceding more land for peace, were met with more Hamas violence and more promises to destroy Israel and create 'Palestine from the River to the Sea'.

The Palestinans do indeed need freedom, as Marshall asserts; but not from Israeli control. They need freedom from their own totalitarian, tyrannical, triumphalist, theocractic, imperialist, jihadist, supremicist, terrorist and genocidal government.

In the real world, there are very bad consequences to very bad decisions. The Palestinian people's decision to follow terrorist leaders has led to some very bad consequences for the Palestinian people. There are no leaders without followers.

Can Ms. Marshall be so galacticallly ignorant of the realities of the Middle East conflict, or does she merely hope that her audience is?

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 30, 2007.


The initial story was that six Muslim clerics publicly prayed before boarding an airplane in Minneapolis, from which they were removed before the flight. They were unarmed and not part of a terrorist plot. American prejudice against Muslims. The imams are suing US Airways.

Now come additional facts that put matters in a different light. One of the imams prayed uncharacteristically loudly, as if to draw attention to himself and his faith. When the six boarded, they requested different seats -- a pair at the front, another pair in the middle, and the last two in the rear, as if to control all exits. Why else would the group separate?

Three of average build asked for seatbelt extenders, and slipped them under their seats, instead of using them. Seatbelt extenders have heavy metal buckles, not suitable for cushions but useful as weapons. Apparently they were performing to arouse suspicion, be expelled, and have a basis for lawsuit. One of the imams who seemed to be reenacting 9/11 duly complained he was treated as criminal. He must hope to profit from the American reflex against discrimination and to propagandize against US self-defense, (John McWhorter, NY Sun, 3/15, Op.-Ed.).


The federal government indicted two Americans for talking to a newspaper reporter about publicly known information that happened also to be classified. This is an unprecedented crackdown, for no public benefit, on what hardly is a crime, but the government is treating it as espionage. The prosecutor wants to keep the evidence secret from the public. Secret trials usually outrage the ACLU and the like.

Not this time. Those usually voluble groups, which devote bountiful resources to the rights of enemy combatants, are not following this case. Could that be because this case involves officials of AIPAC, the Israel lobby, not enemies of our country? (NY Sun, 3/15, Ed..) Is that why the crackdown?


During the Holocaust, denial was the mode. Although reporters witnessed Nazi "round-up of Jews, the railroad lines of cattle cars, the work camps, the death camps, the gas chambers and the crematoria," the major media, such as the NY Times and Chicago Tribune buried that news on the back pages as unconfirmed" (Winston Mid East Analysis,3/6).

Calling it "unconfirmed" is unconscionable!

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@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 30, 2007.

Two items. Different tactics depending on how much Islamists are in control. The first item come from the LittleGreenFootballs website
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24949_Ethiopian_Muslims_ Beat_Christian_Evangelist_to_Death_in_Mosque#comments. The second is called "Muslim sues judge who barred veil and is from the Detroit News

Our friends in the House of Saud have been spending billions to promote the Wahhabist strain of supremacist Islam in the Horn of Africa, and their efforts are bearing fruit in atrocities like this: Ethiopian Evangelist Beaten to Death by Militant Muslims. (Hat tip: Ringo.)

On Monday afternoon Tedase and two female coworkers were conducting street evangelism on Merkato Street in Jimma, Southern Ethiopia. Merkato Street runs by a Wahabbi Mosque. As the team was walking by the Mosque, a group of Muslims exited the Mosque and began to run after them to confront them. Tedase's female coworkers ran away from the mob but Tedase continued on. The Muslims caught up with Tedase, pulled him into the mosque, and savagely beat him to death. Sources from Jimma reported that Tedase was beaten with a calculated intention to kill him. This was no accident or case of mob frenzy getting out of control. His body was later taken to the hospital for an autopsy and he was buried Tuesday, March 27.

Our sources also reveal that Jimma Christians were conducting an evangelism campaign, and news of the outreach was spreading among Jimma residents as well as militant Muslim groups in the area. The Muslims that belonged to the Wahabbi sect purposefully beat Tedase to death as a message to Christians that they are ready to combat evangelism.

When Ginnah Muhammad refused to remove her veil, her case over a dispute with a car rental firm was dismissed, she alleges. (Velvet S. McNeil/The Detroit News)
They always come back, and yesterday the woman whose small claims case was thrown out when she refused to remove her face mask filed suit against the judge: "Muslim sues judge who barred veil."

A Muslim woman who was told she had to remove her veil if she wanted to testify in 31st District Court in Hamtramck filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the judge who made the ruling.

Ginnah Muhammad filed the complaint against Judge Paul Paruk, alleging he violated her religious rights and denied her equal access to the courts.

Muhammad had gone to small claims court last October in a dispute with a car rental company when Paruk said she could not testify unless she removed her veil, the lawsuit alleges.

"If in fact, you do not wish to do it, then I cannot go forward with your case and I have to dismiss your case," Paruk told the woman, according to a transcript attached to the complaint filed by Dearborn Heights lawyer Nabih Ayad. Muhammad refused and Paruk dismissed the case, the lawsuit alleges. Paruk did not return a phone call.

"I'm a human being and I wanted to come to court to get justice," Muhammad said at a news conference Wednesday outside the federal courthouse in Detroit. "When I walked out, I just really felt empty, like the courts didn't care about me."

The Quran doesn't explicitly require women to cover their face, but many Muslim women wear a hajib or other covering as a sign of piety and modesty.

The Detroit News is amazingly clueless on this issue. Forget about the fact that they won't even consider the possibility this is a radical Islamic agenda at work; that's not a "veil" she's wearing, it's a niqab, a full-body disguise, one step away from the burqa (which obscures the eyes as well). And the word for the veil that covers the head and hair is "hijab," not "hajib." Sheesh.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, March 30, 2007.
This was written by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann and it appeared on FrontPageMagazine.com March 26, 2007. It is archived at

Dick Morris is a former adviser to Bill Clinton. Eileen McGann is an attorney and CEO of www.Vote.com. Together, they collaborate on books, columns and foreign political campaigns. To receive free copies of all of their commentaries, please sign up at www.dickmorris.com.

The past few years have seen a concerted international PR campaign to promote Dubai as a tolerant new Mecca of Middle East moderation and amazing economic growth.

And it's working. Corporate giant Halliburton is moving its headquarters there; the famed Louvre is opening a branch in the emirate. Tourists are flocking to Dubai's luxury hotels.

But don't be fooled. Dubai, which is one of the seven princedoms of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), is anything but tolerant and progressive.

To put it bluntly: They don't like Jews.

In fact, Dubai, like the rest of the UAE, is blatantly anti-Semitic. It bars all Israeli citizens from ever setting foot in the country. People from other nations whose passport have stamps indicating they've even visited Israel must notify Dubai immigration authorities of the stamp before entering.

Dubai is also actively involved in the Arab boycott of Israel: It bans all products made in Israel and even ones with parts made in Israel.

But the emir of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, understands the value of using prominent Americans to legitimize his country and burnish its image in the American media.

That's why former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have been the objects of Dubai largesse. Their Dubai friends have given millions to each of their presidential libraries. And Bill Clinton has raked in more than $1 million for speeches he's given in Dubai and the UAE.

Dubai's PR machine went into high gear after 9/11 -- in part to distract attention from the extensive use the terrorists made of the emirate. More than half of the hijackers traveled to the United States via Dubai. The 9/11 Commission noted that $234,500 of the $300,000 wired to the hijackers and plot leaders in America came via Dubai banks.

Several months after 9/11, Dubai's newest best friend began his public association with the country. In January 2002, Bill Clinton gave his first Dubai speech (for $300,000). He's been legitimizing the country ever since.

Clinton was the rainmaker who introduced the emir to his friend and employer, Ron Berkle, the owner of Yucaipa companies and a major fund-raiser for Bill and Hillary.

Last year, Yucaipa and the emir formed a new company, DIGL, for their joint ventures. So Bill Clinton is now an adviser and member of the board of directors of a company that is in partnership with the anti-Israeli government of Dubai.

The Clintons won't reveal how much the former president pocketed for setting up this deal, except to report on Hillary's Senate disclosure form: "more than $1,000."

A lot more. According to San Francisco Examiner columnist P.J. Corkery, Clinton makes $10 million a year from Yucaipa.

Bill isn't alone in legitimizing Dubai. Other Clinton pals -- including disgraced former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, ex-Secretary of State Madeline Albright and Al and Tipper Gore -- have attended highly publicized events there.

So have some Republicans -- including former Bush Sr. Chief of Staff John Sununu, presidential brother Neal Bush and Rudy Guiliani.

Republican ex-Sen. Bob Dole and Democratic ex-Rep. Tom Downey lobby for Dubai; so does The Glover Park Group, home of Hillary Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson and former President Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart.

Major U.S. business leaders populate the many conferences sponsored by Dubai and its industries.

All of this helps legitimize Dubai. And no one mentions the problem with Israel.

Bill Clinton even created a Dubai Scholars Program at the American University in Dubai under the sponsorship of the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation. Laura Tyson, Clinton's chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, created a similar Dubai study program at the University of London.

But not everyone is blind.

Last month, the University of Connecticut correctly abandoned plans to open up a campus in Dubai after serious complaints about Dubai's state-imposed discrimination of people based on their national origin and religion and its documented violations of human rights. (For example, Human Rights Watch has said Dubai abuses tens of thousands of migrant workers from India and Pakistan.)

The Clinton Foundation certainly wouldn't sponsor a program in America that banned Israeli students. It shouldn't sponsor one in Dubai, either.

It's time to stop legitimizing an anti-Semitic state.

To Go To Top

Posted by Elan Journo, March 29, 2007.

Washington's policy of bringing elections to the Middle East, we were assured, would lead the region's people to embrace America. But in fact many have flocked to support Islamic totalitarians--members of the ideological movement behind 9/11.

In Lebanon's U.S.-backed election, Hezbollah won positions in the cabinet, and its current drive to topple the regime and take over has massive popular support. In the Palestinian territories, Hamas won in a landslide; it remains both wildly popular and adamantly committed to destroying Israel. In Egypt's parliamentary elections, the group that scored stupendous gains was the Muslim Brotherhood, whose offshoots include Hamas and parts of al Qaeda.

This show of support for Islamic totalitarianism is commonly attributed to Washington's supposedly overly aggressive military action, which allegedly antagonized and "radicalized" otherwise-friendly people in the region. But in fact the opposite is true. It is Washington's failure to unleash sufficient force to defeat the Islamists that explains their growing popularity.

Contrary to Bush's evasions, vast numbers of Muslims in the region have not been pining to embrace our political values. They have long been intellectually sympathetic to the Islamists. These Muslims believe that submission to Allah's laws is morally good, and that their religion was meant to apply universally. While many will not themselves attack the West, they regard the cause of Islamic world domination as a noble ideal. This is why so many condone and actively support Islamist warriors and their sponsoring regimes. Consider the (little reported) street demonstrations after 9/11 across the Islamic world celebrating Osama bin Laden as a hero; consider the everyday popular glorification of "martyrs" on posters and in videos.

The region's widespread support for Islamic totalitarianism is led by the states that are that movement's chief financiers and inspirations: Iran and Saudi Arabia. These regimes are waging a proxy war against the West; they are proselytizing and recruiting untold numbers to join the fight to subjugate mankind to Islamic rule.

Since the Islamist cause has state-sponsorship and widespread moral endorsement, Washington's military response to 9/11 should have been to crush the hostile Islamist regimes and demoralize the movement's many abettors. By unapologetically devastating these regimes, America would have disheartened the Islamists and their supporters. Only demoralized people will reject the ideals and leaders that inspired their belligerence and promised victory; only humiliating defeat will drive them to renounce the fight as hopeless.

But instead of defending America by bringing defeat to our enemies, Bush chose to bring them elections--elections that have strengthened the Islamist cause.

Were Bush and his supporters merely ignorant about the ideas popular in the region? No, anyone who reads the newspaper can tell that Islamists command mass support. Bush and his supporters pushed for elections, not because of some honest mistake about the probable results, but because they evaded--and continue to evade--the nature of the threat we face from the Middle East. Why? Because our leaders lack the moral courage to do what is necessary to destroy it.

If our leaders admitted the nature of the threat, they would have to fight an assertive military campaign against a hugely popular movement--potentially killing many people. But such a response is morally inconceivable to them. They believe that America has no moral right to wage a self-interested war to protect our lives. For Washington, only a self-effacing response is legitimate. Thus, our leaders pretend that the threat is limited to a handful of "radicals," and that the region is dense with oppressed, peace-loving admirers of the West. Our leaders selflessly empowered Mideast mobs with elections and vowed to endorse whatever they chose.

Encouraged to vote their conscience, the mobs demanded Islamist rule and "Death to America, Death to Israel."

The U.S.-engineered political success of Islamists vindicates one of the movement's central claims: committed jihadists bearing inferior weapons but armed with moral certainty can triumph over the powerful but cowardly America. Even after 9/11, the United States cravenly refused to defeat Islamists, and instead bent over backwards to hand them political power. What could do more to galvanize Muslim support for the cause of Islamic totalitarianism?

And what could do more to demoralize and disarm the better people in the region, however few, who genuinely renounce terrorism and aspire for freedom?

By bringing elections, rather than defeat, to our enemies, the United States has made them stronger. To protect American lives, we must recognize the ideological nature of the threat and proudly exercise our moral right to self-defense.

Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 29, 2007.
To: president@whitehouse.gov
Subject: Time to Stand up to the Saudis: the Free World relies on you
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:54:39 -0700

Dear Mr. President,

I regret the length of this email to you. I know you are busy. But please take the time to read my input, and that of major international analysts and commentators appended below. The fate of the free world may depend upon it; and currently, you are the leader of the free world.

If you give in to Saudi pressure, and support the Saudis in their attempt to pressure Israel into a one-sided agreement that assures its future destruction...

a.) you will be party to that destruction. That's a pretty heavy cross for a believing Christian to bear.

b.) you will lend credence to the Saudi demand that the West resume funding of Hamas; and Hamas is already following Hezbollah as a proxy of Iran. You will thus, indirectly, be supporting Iran in its moves to destroy Israel and establish its hegemony in the Middle East, and especially in Lebanon.

c.) you will indirectly, and inadvertantly, support the start of a Middle East WMD arms race. Various Middle Eastern Arab countries have already declared their interest in WMDs, now that Iran has them (or will have them within the next few months). By supporting Hamas, via your support for the Saudi plan, you are supporting Hezbollah and Iran; and thus you are handing to Iran a diplomatic victory that wil embolden Iran even as the Saudis think that your support for the Saudi peace plan diminishes Iran. A publicly emboldened Iran will open the door for more Iranian aggression (close the straits of Hormuz? Kidnap more soldiers? send more weapons and Pasdaran specialists to the Shi'ite Mahdi army in Iraq, better to kill Sunni and Americans?) and that aggression will spur the Arab Middle East states to their own concern for WMDs to off-set the Iranian quest.

A nuclear Middle East, where MAD does not work (because the Iranian's think that the Hidden Imam is neigh), is a threat to the entire world...not just to the free world of the West. In addition to the possibility of Iran using WMDs against Israel or against other neighbors who do not accept Iran's hegemony, you must consider the dire possibility that Iran, or some macchiavellian broker, will sell WMDs to Osama and his pals. You must also consider the possibility that Iran will utilize its new-found good friends in South America as a launching pad for the threat of nuclear attacks on the USA (per my earlier emails to you regarding Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia).

The current Saudi plan is a demand for Israel to offer its unconditional surrender, and then to hang suspended in the hope that Arab good will alone will motivate the Arab world to reverse its 85 year war against Israel. Not much precedent for that.

It would be suicidal for Israel to accept such a plan.

By standing up to the Saudis, you will be protecting the interests of the entire free world that there remain a nuclear-free Persian Gulf, a nuclear-free Arab world, and an Iran and Arabia both diminished in their abilities to threaten one another and their neighbors and the West.

It is time to stand up to the Saudis.

The imperviousness of the Saudi plan to any changes, any negotiations, any Israeli input; along with the insistence on the 'right of return' that everyone knows is a deal-breaker for Israel; all indicate that this is not a real peace plan. But it is a PR success of the highest order for the Arab leadership intent on destroying Israel.

The PR picture:

The Arabs get together and offer a peace plan.

They know in advance that the plan has 'deal breaker' elements in it to which Israel will never acquiesce.

They also know that many details of the plan should be worked out in negotiations; but an integral part of the offer is the 'take it or leave it, as is' aspect, about which they are obdurate.

So, naturally, Israel rejects it.

The Arabs can now say that Israel, therefore (and not the Arabs), has chosen war.

Thus one can conclude that:

Israel is to blame for the current state of war.

Israel is every bit as bad as the Arabs always said it was, and maybe worse [who knew that Israel would have the audacity to blatantly reject the best (and only) peace offer ever, coming from ALL the Arab states per the Riyadh summit].

And since the Arab-Israel conflict is at the very heart of all conflict in the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan), it is Israel that is at cause and at fault for these conflicts as well.

Thus Israel is to blame for USA soldiers dying in Iraq, for Iran's WMD threats, for Pakistan's help to the Taliban in Waziristan, and (who knows) maybe even for slavery in Mauritania, 13 years of internecine rivalries in Algeria, Egypt's oppression of Copts, Saudi oppression of everyone non-Saudi, Sudan's genocide of 3,000,000 black African Christians and black African Muslims, Syria's support for terrorism, Hezbollah's take-over of Lebanon, the Iraqi Sunni-Shi'a civil war, Islamofascist terrorism world wide, Sudanese aggression against Chad, Islmofascist war in Nigeria, terrorism in Ivory Coast, Somalia's invasion of Ethiopia, and the Iranian mullocracy's support for a nuclear Akhmedi-Nejjad (just to name a few hot-spot problems in which Arabs or Muslims are at cause in the world today).

Thus, the PR war can be won in one fell swoop by this 'peace initiative.' and this PR war win is a real win-win for the Arabs because if Israel does acquiesce, then it will have made substantive, costly concessions which endanger its security and make it more vulnerable to attack, and which cannot be reversed (except by war) -- while the Arab side has made only symbolic verbal concessions which cost nothing and are easy to reverse.

Thus the stage is set, if Israel acquiesces, to a later reversal of these Arab concessions (on some flimsy excuse or another) and an assault on a weakened and disadvantaged Israel from positions of much greater strength and geographic advantage.

In short, the reality of the Saudi plan is Israel's 'unconditional surrender'; and then all Israel can do is hope for the Arab nations' good intentions to motivate their follow-through on paper promises.

But, wait, how can one know if/when the Saudi plan is sincere?

Easy. An honest attempt by the Arabs at peace making would include the following, rather obvious, and historically well precedented, characteristics:

1.) The reversal of the Khartoum 'NO's (Aug. 1967: No recognition, No negotiations, No peace)

a.) Start with recognizing the obvious: that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, just as Pakistan and Iran and Arabia have the right to exist as avowedly Muslim states.

b.) Enter in to negotiations with clear ends in mind, but with no pre-conditions (thus the demand that Israel accept all of the requirements of the Saudi plan a priori is the opposite of honest negotiations in good faith)

c.) State up front the willingness to make peace in concrete steps which are substantive and quantifiable according to a reasonable time table with mile-stone checks along the way to see that these steps are progressing per the quantifiable , then follow through, per below #2 & #3.

2.) Agreement to a substantive first steps: such as (inter alia)

a.) the end to anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement in Arab schools and mosques and media and government...then no further steps until this first step is implemented.

(How can any country in the world claim it is seeking peace when its citizenry are inundated daily, for decades, with messages of hate for the country with which peace is to be made?)

(Since there is no free media anywhere in the entire Arab world, such a shift is not difficult if the command comes from the government).

b.) the end to state financial support for Arab/Muslim terrorism...then no further steps, ...etc.

(How can any Arab state make a credible claim to a desire for peace when it is spending billions of $$ on terrorism directed against its 'peace partner'?)

(Since the Saudi royal family controls pretty much all of the resources of Saudi Arabia, just this one nation's royal family's decision to cut off financial support would decimate the terrorist forces worldwide).

c.) the end to state physical support and training and shelter of terrorism...then no further steps...etc.

(How can any Arab state make a credible claim to a desire for peace when it harbors tens of thousands of terrorists and shelters them in scores of training camps and trains them for deployment against its 'peace partner'?)

(Since Hezbollah and Hamas are now funded in large part by Iran via Syria, Syrian agreement to step out of the circle of terror-friendly states and align with the honest peace partners in the Arab world would hamstring both Hamas and Hezbollah, and it would also send Iran scurrying for new ways to support its proxies).

d.) the rendering illegal of any and all terrorism and incitement to terrorism and attempted genocide and incitement to genocide and attempted policide and incitement to policide, in all Arab states, such that well-known and identifiable terrorists in Arab countries would be arrested and tried (and perhaps executed) for their roll in mass murder and various other crimes against humanity...then no further steps...etc.

(How can any Arab state claim it wants peace with Israel while nurturing the paramilitary terrorist armed forces that it overtly intends to deploy against israel with the goal of Israel's destruction and the genocide of its Jews?)

(Since currently all Arab countries except Jordan grant, or have in the recent past granted, legal and government -approved support and safe harbor to known terrorists and to entire terrorist armies, this will be a difficult, but telling, step.)

e.) the end to the propaganda/political war being waged against Israel in the UN and the EU and in parts of the UK and the USA (primarily media and academia)...then no further steps...etc.

(How can any Arab country command credibility as a willing peace partner when it supports a PR/political war whose vociferously ballyhooed intent is the delegitimization of Israel and the legitimization of Israel's destruction?)

(Since this PR war is being funded almost entirely by the Saudi royal family, it will not be difficult for the Saudi royalty, if they are sincere in their quest for peace, to cut off the funding to the propaganda groups and PR companies that work 24/7 to generate anti-Israel resolutions, anti-Israel PR pieces, anti-Israel conspiracy theories, anti-Israel school curricula, and an endless diatribe of hate-speech couched in the rhetoric of demonization and annihilation)

3.) Acknowledgement of past belligerent dynamics and their results, and acknowledge need to establish trust:

Because the Arab world, almost as a monolith, has maintained a series of full-scale wars, and an endless ongoing terror war, and an endless ongoing propaganda war, all aimed at destroying Israel and genociding its Jews...for the last 60 years, it is reasonable for Israel to be suspicious.

After all, this could easily be a ploy...and a very good one (and cf. PMW article below). Pretend to want peace. Make all of the demands for Israel's substantive concessions that are difficult or impossible to reverse; and make Arab concessions that are easy to reverse. And then strike, from a position of strength after Israel has been gravely weakened.

Moreover, a very immediate and transparent objective of such a ploy is to present to the West an acceptable face for the PA (under Hamas leadership) as one of peace and moderation, so that money will again start flowing from the EU and the USA and the monetary embargo can end.

Finally a longer-range regional objective for the sudden Saudi interest in peace-making (albeit on Saudi terms, not the terms that most nations recognize as reasonable and rational) is the need for the Saudis to at least slow the Iranian entry in to the dynamics of the Middle East war against Israel, if not actually halt it and wrest the initiative from Iran to reclaim it for themselves.

So, in light of the above, Arab states should be able (if they really want peace) to understand Israel's need to see some substantive and concrete concessions and changes on the Arab side before it can trust the sincerity of the Arab proposal. These are called 'confidence building measures'.

Acknowledging this tragic reality, Arab states can demonstrate their sincerity by undertaking a time line of changes akin to those listed above, coordinated with Israeli concessions, with mile-stones, with apparatus for verification, and with Israel reserving the right to reverse concessions in the absence of Arab compliance.

All of the above requires extensive negotiations and demonstration of flexibility and good will from both sides.

The absence of any Arab willingness to enter in to such negotiations, and the demand by the Arabs that Israel accept 'as is' the 'peace plan' in its entirety, and the highly transparent motivation for the mis-representation of Hamas as a party to peace in order to gain monetary reward from the West, are very strong indications that the current Arab peace plan is not sincere.

It will then be reasonable for Israel to interpret this new Arab peace plan as a disguised demand for unconditional surrender...a demand to which Israel is under no obligation to acquiesce.

David ML

ps. Debka.com notes two Arab preconditions not mentioned earlier. End Aliyah (one of the core reasons for Israel's existence; and in any case an unacceptable demand, because what state anywhere in the world allows foreign entities to control its immigration policies?) and end defensive preventative measures against terrorist attacks.

Hmmm. ... Now what can the Saudis have in mind with these two preconditions that no state in the world could accept?

"Arabs want halt in Jewish immigration"
DEBKA (3.27.07)

DEBKAfile Exclusive: The halt of Jewish immigration to Israel is one of two key Arab pre-conditions for engaging the Jewish state in peace talks

Our Arab sources reveal that the two conditions will be incorporated in the final resolutions approved by the Arab League summit in Riyadh on Thursday.

1. Israel must halt Jewish immigration so that the Israelis leaving the country or revoking their citizenship are not replaced by newcomers.

2. The international community must condemn Israel's High Court of Justice for authorizing targeted assassination of Palestinians in cases of security threats. Arab justice ministers will lobby international judicial bodies to elicit this condemnation.

Another liberal Arab intellectual/author gets it right. Below, MEMRI (www.thememriblog.org) provides excerpts from Mamoun Fandy's essay. See (1.) below. (2.) below is a Washington Times editorial on the Saudi Peace Plan.

1.) "Adding of the Right of Return to the Saudi Initiative Changed It From 'The Start of an Earnest Dialogue' to 'An Initiative Impossible to Implement'"

In an article in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on March 26, 2007, the eve of the Arab League summit in Riyadh, liberal author Dr. Mamoun Fandy wrote on the Arabs' tendency to leave obstructions to development in place rather than remove them, comparing these issues to rocks left in the middle of the road.

In particular, he points to the Palestinian issue as one that has drained the energies of the Arab states for more than 50 years, and calls on the conferees at the summit to remove the demand for the return of Palestinian refugees from the Arab peace initiative in order to arrive at a practical and realistic solution to the Palestinian issue. The following are excerpts:[1]

'For 50 Years the Arabs Have Been Walking Around the Palestinian Issue'

'King 'Abdallah Bin 'Abd Al-'Aziz's initiative has traveled the breadth and width of the Arab states and the world since 2002, until they [i.e. the Arabs] returned to it once more in Riyadh in 2007.

'It was inevitable that the initiative, like every Arab dossier, would tour like this... [The Arabs] have become convinced today that this tour is no solution, and have returned to the land of the 2002 initiative for the Riyadh summit... [But] the basic problem for the [summit] conferees can still be summed up in one word: 'rock.'

'I am referring to... the boulder placed in the middle of the public road, which is surrounded by the cries of those with a vested interest in its remaining in place.

'In every country in the world, when a rock obstructs a road, the municipality hurries to move it aside to facilitate the flow of traffic. However, in the Arab world, someone throws a rock in the road, and instead of moving it aside, those claiming to be of sound judgment come up with [what they consider] the ideal way to deal with the problem of the rock -- namely, placing a sign above it saying 'Careful of the Rock.'

'The worst thing is that tending to the rock requires, in the long term, entire institutions -- from the workers who man the shifts at night carrying lanterns to light up the sign above the rock, to the construction of an overpass to circumvent the rock, or the digging of an underpass.

'One of the most important responsibilities of the Riyadh summit is to get rid of the rock, instead of placing a warning sign on it and going around it.

'The rocks that stand in the path of our success and our development are many, from all our institutions... to our international relations. But I will be blunt right from the start, and say that leaving the Palestinian issue for 50 years without an ultimate solution is the largest rock blocking the road of Arab development. Either we remove this rock from the road with a fundamental and permanent solution, or else we continue building overpasses and underpasses.

'For 50 years, the Arabs have been walking around the Palestinian issue. They started newspapers and broadcasts and TV stations for this issue, and produced writers and analysts and intellectuals for this issue, and readied tremendous armies and allocated fat budgets to this issue, but none of this advanced a solution or was of any benefit. All of this just rallied under the sign 'Careful of the Rock."

By Including the Right of Return, the Arabs 'Emptied the [Saudi] Initiative of its Content'

'The strange thing is that the Palestinian issue did not merely make the Arabs uphold leaving it like a rock [obstructing] development in their countries, but has even made the Israelis share these same feelings with us, since it is in their interest to leave the issue of Palestine as a rock in the region. The Americans joined in the process [as well,] and began to draw up a map to avoid the rock, instead of removing the pitfall from the road.

'It was King 'Abdullah Bin 'Abd Al-'Aziz alone who proposed [this] earnest initiative at the Beirut summit in 2002, and it was the start of an earnest dialogue to resolve the issue of Palestine. But the 'rock crowd' added to it the issue of the return of the Palestinian refugees, in order to change it from an earnest initiative suitable for a comprehensive solution, that made the most of the existing realities, into an initiative that was impossible to implement, [and] not much different than the unimplemented Security Council resolutions. In so doing, they emptied the Saudi initiative of its content, and left the Palestine issue as a rock, so that they can carry the lanterns that light up the sign hung on the rock, and so they can shout at us, 'Careful of the rock!'

'[When] the initiative is proposed again now in Riyadh, it must be a courageous proposal that does not bow to the 'rock lobby.' The Palestinian issue must be solved, as a basis for the solution of all of the pending questions in the region.

'I personally consider it auspicious that representatives from Malaysia, Indonesia, and Turkey are present at this summit, since we, as Arabs, have over the last 50 years become accustomed to [seeing the Palestinian issue as] a knotty issue that only the prophets can unravel -- so that for us it has reached the level of sanctity. Perhaps those coming from afar have a courageous, outside perspective that can help us call things by their [true] names and help us see the issue of Palestine as one that can be resolved through clarity of vision, without exaggerating its sanctity.'

Some Conferees Will Come 'Armed to the Teeth With Their Media Militias' and Will Say that the 'Iranian Rock Blocking Peace and Security is an 'Islamic Rock'.

'The [second] rock that the Riyadh summit must deal with is... the export of extremism, which has become the Arabs' second [largest] export after oil. The conferees need to discuss clearly and transparently the downturn in the security situation in Iraq, and the suicide terrorists who blow themselves up there, even in the houses of Allah. They didn't come out of [thin] air, nor did they come to Iraq through the air, [but rather came to Iraq from neighboring countries].

'The responsibility for combating terrorism is weighty and is shared [by all], and it calls for an urgent collective effort that cannot stand delay. But some of the conferees in Riyadh claim that America alone is responsible for the destruction... This claim is an attempt to evade responsibility and to leap over the rock via an overpass.

'The Riyadh summit must address [the issue of a] nuclear Iran, another large rock placed in the center of the Middle East, despite its complexities. Naturally, there will be at the summit a significant group of politicians armed to the teeth with their media militias, who will say that the Iranian rock blocking peace and security in the region is 'an Islamic rock,' and that 'the intervention of America or Europe in this matter is humiliating to the feelings of the Muslims,' and that 'moving this rock is an offense to Islam and the Muslims'...

'Education in the Arab world could also be considered a large rock in the path of development, to which the coming Arab summit should pay heed. This is especially [true] since we know that not a single university in the Arab world offers an intellectual product for the world's consideration -- unless we take into account some of the universities' specialization in producing 'software' for terrorism and a [terrorist] mentality. Our education ministers claim that it is impossible to do better, and that the budgets allocated to them are insufficient, and that there is no choice but to establish private universities, on the condition that they not teach the curricula of the 'infidels.' This is an ingenious solution, much like the solution of employing workers with lanterns at night to call pedestrians' attention to the rock placed in the middle of the path.

'What the coming Arab summit in Riyadh must do is move aside the heavy rocks [obstructing] growth, development, and peace in the Arab world, and not shirk its responsibilities... and circle around them, or build bridges and tunnels above and below them.

'The Arab world expects King 'Abdullah Bin 'Abd Al-'Aziz... the author of the initiative on which the summit will focus, to restore to the Arabs their faith in the meaning of the word 'summit'...'

1. Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), March 26, 2007.

(2.) "The Saudi 'peace' plan ultimatum"
Today's Editorial, Washington Times
March 29, 2007

During her visit to the Middle East this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been touting a peace plan advocated by Saudi Arabia as the basis for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations -- even though it has serious flaws that have raised well-founded concerns from a dovish Israeli government. Parts of the Saudi plan, particularly the proposal for a peace agreement in which the Arab states agree to recognize Israel, are indeed laudable and deserve support. Other parts, particularly provisions demanding that Israel yield all of the West Bank territory it captured in a defensive war and return to its precarious pre-1967 borders; requiring that it yield the Golan Heights to a Syrian Ba'athist regime that is aligned with Iran; and leaving open the possibility that Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war and their descendants might be permitted to return to their former homesteads inside what is now Israel, are unacceptable. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert quite sensibly has asked that these provisions at a minimum be significantly modified.

Mr. Olmert got his answer from Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal on Tuesday in the form of an ultimatum. Prince Saud said the proposal is non-negotiable, and suggested that Israel would be to blame if war broke out as a result of its failure to swallow it whole. 'It has never been proven that reaching out to Israel achieves anything,' he told the London Telegraph. If Israel does not agree to the offer, it will be putting its future 'in the hands of the lords of war,' he added. (This apparently was the royal response to the hopes of Miss Rice and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni that Saudi Arabia would make the plan the basis for future discussions with Israel, not a take-it-or-leave-it offer.) Yesterday Saudi King Abdullah opened an Arab summit meeting in Riyadh by calling 'illegitimate' the U.S. military presence in Iraq and denouncing as 'oppressive' the embargo on the terrorist-dominated Palestinian Authority government.

The U.S. government has invested considerable political time and effort over the years in trying to advance the cause of peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Given the strategic importance of the Middle East to the United States, that is something this newspaper has strongly supported -- in particular, the Bush administration's work to bring about an Israeli-Palestinian settlement based on the creation of an independent Palestinian state living in peace with Israel. But in the real world, advancing any plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace today would appear to face tremendous if not insurmountable obstacles -- so much so that it is difficult to understand why Miss Rice has seen fit to spend so much political capital in wartime on a diplomatic initiative with so little likelihood of success. Ever since Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat signed their Declaration of Principles in September 1993 while a beaming President Clinton looked on, efforts to create a 'peace process' worthy of the name have been crippled by incitement and terror from Arafat, Hamas and others on the Palestinian side.

Today, the Palestinian Authority that runs Gaza and aspires to run the West Bank is headed by a coalition government comprised of two organizations: 1) Fatah, which includes terrorists such as the Iranian-backed al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, as well as ineffectual 'moderates' such as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who make statements about nonviolence and 'two-state solutions' when meeting with Miss Rice and Mr. Olmert, but do little or nothing of substance to make them a reality; and 2) Hamas, which remains committed to Israel's destruction and reserves the right to continue 'resistance' (terrorism and other acts of violence) against Israel. Given these realities, any peace plan would face an uphill battle -- at best.

The Saudi plan had its origins at a March 2002 Arab summit meeting in Beirut -- a meeting which was overshadowed by one of the most deadly terrorist campaigns in Israel's history, culminating in the March 27, 2002, bombing by Hamas of a Passover seder at a hotel in Netanya, in which 30 people were killed. In response to these attacks, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon launched Operation Defensive Shield, sending the Israeli Army into the West Bank several days later to wipe out the terror cells Arafat had allowed to flourish there. As the fighting escalated, the Saudi initiative was largely forgotten until this year when the diplomats trotted it out in desperation for something they could plausibly call 'progress.'

If the Saudis want to be taken seriously as peacemakers, they need to stop issuing ultimatums to Israel and start issuing them to the Palestinian irredentists they continue to lavish money on.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, March 29, 2007.

Last week Hebron's Jewish community received a green light from its attorneys, Eitan Geva and Nadav HaEtzni. The deal was completed to their satisfaction. We could move in.

The community purchased a 4,000 sq. meter structure, overlooking the road between Hebron and Kiryat Arba. A complicated and expensive affair which took several years to conclude, the building was purchased from its previous owner for approximately $700,000 through an office in Jordan.

As soon as the final legalities were finished, it was decided to take possession of the newly-owned property. A group of students from Yeshivat Shavei Hevron, together with Hebron community residents, moved in.

Such a transaction, anywhere else in the world, would not even make the local papers. People buy and sell property every day, not only for hundreds of thousands of dollars, but for millions of dollars. However, Hebron is different. Purchase of a building in Hebron makes international headlines. "Isn't this a provocation?" "Is the community trying to expand?" "Why did you take over a 'palestinian' house?"

Let's take one question at a time: An Arab contractor claims the building belongs to him and says he has the papers to prove it.

Any Arab suspected of selling property to Jews is considered to have committed a capital crime, the punishment for which is death. A year ago Muhammad Abu al-Hawa was killed for such a crime. "Fatah gunmen in Jericho have claimed responsibility for the murder, condemning the victim as a "traitor." In a leaflet, the gunmen threatened to kill any Arab who dares to sell his house to Jews." (The Jerusalem Post, April 16, 2006).

To further prove the point, a few days ago, while being interviewed by CNN correspondent Ben Weidman, an Arab woman interrupted our conversation, speaking to him in Arabic at a rapid pace. When she had concluded I queried, "what did she say." Weidman replied that she wants copies of the sales documents in order to put the seller on trial. Another Arab resident of the area told Ga'alie Tzahal radio journalist Guy Varon, "If the Jews really did buy it, all the more power to them. But we will find the seller and chop him up into tiny pieces."

This being the case, any Arab who is suspected of dealing with Jews, immediately yells 'counterfeit' -- I didn't do it! In this particular instance, however, the Arab in question really did sell the property, but he didn't know it was being sold to Jews. He thought the deal was with another Arab. To prove the point, the police have been given a video of him counting the money.

Is the community trying to expand? There are dozens of families on a waiting list to live in Hebron. The first generation's children are marrying and many of them wish to reside in Hebron. However, there are no available apartments. In order to build in Hebron (on empty, undisputed Jewish-owned property) permits reaching the heights of the Defense minister must be obtained. Given the current political climate, such permits are very difficult to receive. Purchasing from Arabs is dangerous (for them), expensive, and very intricate. It isn't often that a seller is found and a workable deal formulated. However, if such an occurrence presents itself, why not? Because we are Jews? Should a Jew be prevented from purchasing property in Hebron, Maryland, or any of the other 11 Hebrons in North America because he was Jewish, headlines and legal actions due to racism and anti-Semitism would be immediate. Why is it that only in the original Hebron, the first Jewish city in Israel, should Jews be forbidden from legally purchasing a building, only because we are Jewish? Why should such a purchase be considered a provocation?

How does this building affect security in the region? According to high-ranking officers, this structure, which was previously used by the IDF to station guards, will only enhance the area's security due to its strategic location between Hebron and Kiryat Arba.

It is important to note: There are all kinds of rumors floating around, of various sorts and sizes. According to our sources, a police investigation has determined that the sale was fully 'legal.' However, the Defense Minister, Amir Peretz isn't overly interested in legalities and wants us out. He may very well be looking for an excuse to issue an expulsion order. Clearly, any such order could only be defined as racist and anti-Semitic. The Arabs can renovate, build and purchase as much as they so desire. Only Jews, because they are Jews, are prevented from renovating, building, purchasing. This is, of course, an unacceptable exploitation of authority for political reasons, despite the validity of the purchase.

Finally, this building has been named "Beit HaShalom" -- the House of Peace. It is our fervent desire to live in Hebron peacefully with our neighbors. We seek neither violence nor confrontation. But we do demand the right, our legitimate right, to continue to live in the city of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs. This year marks the fortieth anniversary of Israel's return to Hebron in the 1967 Six-day war. What better a way to commence this celebration than to purchase and populate a new building in Hebron!

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ruth Matar, March 29, 2007.

The West is in trouble! In an open act of war last Friday, Iran kidnapped 15 British sailors in the Persian Gulf. Iran's act of aggression occurred just as the British voted in favor of a UN Security Council Resolution, imposing increased sanctions against Iran for its illicit nuclear weapons program.

Kidnapping is something the Iranians are very good at. Last summer Iran's Lebanese proxy, Hizbullah, kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, to divert attention from Iran's nuclear program. These soldiers have not, as yet, been freed, nor has access to them been allowed. We pray that they are alive and well!

One of the theories about the kidnapping of the 15 British sailors is that Iran used this as a bargaining chip to force the U.S. military to release Iranian operatives, who the U.S. has arrested in Iraq in recent months. No doubt Iran feels that the West, or at least the U.S., will be willing to pay any ransom price to solve this international crisis. And they are right! The U.S. Administration is more than willing to pay the price, as long as it is in Jewish Israeli coin!

U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, certainly no friend of the Jews and Israel, has therefore hastily been dispatched to our neck of the woods. Since last Friday, she has been shuttling between Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, and Saudi-Arabia.

Has Condoleezza Rice come to our region to coordinate moves to check Iran's increasing bellicosity?

Not at all! Rather, Rice is here to promote the Mecca Arab Peace Plan. This Plan was dreamed up by Saudi-Arabia, which pretends to be America's good friend. Never mind that 15 of those 19 terrorists, who blew up the World Trade Center towers, killing more than 3,000 Americans, were bona-fide citizens of Saudi-Arabia!

No Sir! Condoleezza Rice is here to attempt to push the Jewish Israeli scapegoat off the cliff. She is laboring hard to force a weak, ineffective, unpopular Israeli Prime Minister to agree to dangerous and strategically catastrophic concessions to the Palestinian terrorist government.

The Mecca "Peace Plan" that Rice has come to the region to advance does not even have the benefit of a peaceful faade. The Palestinians make clear every single day that they do not and will not accept Israel's right to exist in any borders, and that they will not work to combat terrorism against Israel. The Arab "Peace Plan" will, if implemented, bring about Israel's rapid destruction.

In today's Jerusalem Post, (March 28), there is a verbatim report of excerpts from U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice's March 27th Jerusalem press conference.

Reading this verbatim report of what Rice said, (not somebody's interpretation), makes it crystal clear that she has great animosity toward the Jewish State, and that she is unable to be impartial with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Now for a few excerpts from Rice's verbatim remarks:

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: "President Abbas truly desires peace!"

RUTH MATAR: I beg to differ. On January 14th of this year, Abbas publicly called upon Palestinians to attack Israel. Speaking at a rally to mark the 42nd anniversary of the founding of Fatah, Abbas told a huge crowd in Ramallah: "With the will and determination of its sons, Fatah will continue. We will not give up our principles. We have said that rifles should be directed against the occupation. We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation."

After returning home from her meetings with Abbas, Rice said that the U.S. is working with Abbas' Fatah to create a unified Palestinian security force. Rice then announced a United States 86.4 million dollar grant for the purpose of equipping and training Abbas' Fatah forces!

Mahmoud Dahlan, a Gaza War Lord, was chosen to be responsible for carrying out this plan.

This is an exact quote of what Dahlan said upon being appointed by Abbas:


Dear friends, I don't know what happened to that 86.4 million dollar grant to Abbas that Condoleezza negotiated. Could someone please enlighten me? Did Congress agree to bankroll these murderers?

Now let's discuss Condoleezza's negotiating partner, Ehud Olmert:

*He is currently under investigation on several cases of suspected bribery and corruption.
*His bungling of the Second Lebanon War has left him bereft of any public support, with popularity polling figures between 2 and 3%.
*Olmert agreed to a ceasefire last summer, which was strategically catastrophic for Israel. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 places Israel on the same plane as the illegal Hizbullah terrorist organization; it prevents Israel from taking steps to protect itself; it does not require the safe return of hostages Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser; it enables Hizbullah to rearm and reassert its control over south Lebanon; and lets Hizbullah's state sponsors, Syria and Iran, completely off the hook for their central role in Hizbullah's illegal war against the Jewish state.
*Ehud Olmert proudly boasts that he was the mastermind behind the Gaza disengagement, and that he had to work hard to convince Ariel Sharon to expel the Jews from their homes in Gush Katif.
Olmert and his orientation have proven to be a tragedy for the Jewish people.
*Olmert has sent both of his own sons abroad, one to New York and one to Paris. Could that have been to avoid the dangers of Israeli Mandatory Army Service?

What gives this man the right to sign away portions of our Home Land as if this were his private real estate?

Dear Lord, save us from Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts. Above all, save us from Ehud Olmert, the most ineffective, defeatist and inept Israeli Prime Minister since our country's rebirth. He is even disloyally willing to sell our Home Land for prime-time photo opportunities with bigwig American leaders!

We must get rid of Olmert before he gets rid of us!

Dear friends, we implore you to stand with us in these crucial times. Not only Israel's future is on the line, but that of the United States and of the entire Western World. We must unite now in order to defeat our common enemy!

Please forward this Letter from Jerusalem to President Bush and to all your government representatives.


I am pleased to be able to include the 1968 article by Eric Hoffer in its entirety.

Mr. Hoffer's article was published in the Lod Angeles Times in 1968. It is as relevant today as the day it was written!

With Blessings and Love for Israel,

Ruth Matar

By Eric Hoffer
Los Angeles Times
May 26, 1968)

The Jews are a peculiar people: Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people, and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it. Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchmen. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese--and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.

Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover, but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June, he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on. There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Negroes are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him.

The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts and Jewish resources.

Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general. I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel, so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, March 29, 2007.

This article was written by Amil Imani and it was published on the Family Security Matters network. It is archived at

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American Citizen and pro-democracy activist living in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, poet, and novelist, who speaks out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran.

Iran's mullahs have repeatedly indicated their willingness and ability to help restore order in Iraq, on the condition that the United States packs up and leaves the region. The mullahs have also pledged on their Boy Scout's honor, although they have never been Boy Scouts, that their nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes. As a further gesture of goodwill, these self-appointed custodians of Allah's earth are volunteering to serve as unpaid policemen of the entire Gulf region, protecting vital U.S. interests, just like the Shah did before them. Sounds like a great gift package from the kind-hearted do-gooders of Allah.

Beware of mullahs bearing gifts! The mullahs are diehard adherents of the Islamists' eleventh commandment "Thou shall not lie or dissimilate (tagyyeh), deceive or cheat (ketman) unless they serve a higher purpose." And to these devoted faithful, there is no higher purpose in the world than serving Allah's biding, as they like it and as they interpret it.

Keep in mind that the very name "Islam" means "submission," unquestioning submission to the will of Allah.

Qur'an 33:36, "It is not fitting for a Muslim man or woman to have any choice in their affairs when a matter has been decided for them by Allah and His Messenger. They have no option."

And in the Quran itself, Allah gives these fellows their mandate: Cleanse the earth from all kuffar (infidels), and help usher in the golden rule of Islam over a corrupt world. This high-purpose strategic goal of Islamization legitimizes any and all tactics.

Qur'an 8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."

Allah, in his kindness, leaves a bit of wiggle room for the unbelievers. Those who refuse to convert or whose life is spared may live under the rule of Islam by paying poll taxes.

Qur'an 9:29, "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."

These men of Allah are urged to use every "stratagem of war," to kill and take the disbelievers as captives. The ones they do not kill, mostly women and children, they take as booties of war and slaves. These devotees of Allah have been and continue to be among the most persistent practitioners of slavery.

Qur'an 9:5, "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

"Every stratagem," means every stratagem. No heinous act is out of bounds for these savages. They place children, for instance, in the backseat of a car bomb so that it could be waved through checkpoints without inspection. Then, the adults park the car in the midst of a shopping crowd, run out of the car and detonate it with the children inside. Horrific? Shocking? Absolutely barbaric? These are the same people who used thousands of Iranian children as minesweepers during the Iran-Iraq war to clear a path for their more valued armored vehicles.

And as for Iran's mullahs' unyielding drive to acquire the ultimate weapon, it is in obedience to the command of the Quran. And "terrorism," abhorrent to the civilized world, is explicitly enjoined on the faithful.

Qur'an 8:59 "The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah's enemy."

And for those who advocate retreating to the safety of "fortress America," the following warning should dispel their vain hope. Europe is already partly invaded, and America and other infidel lands are next.

Qur'an 13:41 "Do they not see us advancing from all sides into the land (of the disbelievers), reducing its borders (by giving it to believers in war victories).

It is worse than appeasement to negotiate a "deal" with the Iranian theocrats because any deal struck with these mullahs is only another ruse for them to further their plans. The UN resolutions are nothing more than pieces of paper good for fire, they can pass them all they want, president Ahmadinejad proclaims belligerently. These Islamists go by their 1400-year-old charter of Allah, the Qur'an the same charter that they hold in one hand while slashing the throat of an innocent infidel and yelling joyously "Allah is the greatest" the whole time.

To the misguided "Supreme Guide," mullah Ali Khamenei of Iran, a few words are in order. The civilized Iranians, descendants of Cyrus the Great, find you, mulla Ali, and your cabal of Islamists guilty of heinous crimes. A partial list of charges is given below.


  • You do not represent the Iranian people. You are a usurper of power. You are guilty of transforming a noble nation into a world pariah.

  • You are denying and violating a long-suffering people all its human rights.

  • You are guilty of beating, imprisoning and torturing a few dozen women who braved participating in a peaceful demonstration pleading for equal family rights, on the recent International Day of Women.

  • You systematically beat, imprison, and torture all manners of citizens, from school teachers to students to union workers, for daring to raise their voices against the plight to which you have subjected them.

  • You savagely beat and haul to your dungeons of torture and death over a thousand of the tens of thousands of teachers who had recently gathered in front of the parliament requesting nothing more than their back pay and living wages.

  • You direct systematic genocidal measures against all non-Shia religious minorities, with Baha'is as prime target.

  • You arrest some Christians, even your Quran calls "People of the Book," for observing Christmas.

  • You implement barbaric practices of stoning, hanging and amputations for those who are convicted of crimes in your kangaroo courts without due process. You even imprison those few lawyers who rise in the defense of the innocent.

  • You plunder, mismanage and dole out Iran's national wealth with the result that the great majority of the people are living in poverty. Iranian women are forced into prostitution to survive or simply sold as sex slaves in Persian Gulf states.

  • Your fascist misrule of nearly three decades has driven millions of Iran's best children to four corners of the world. Hundreds of thousands of educated Iranians are compelled to continue the exodus, depriving Iran of the sorely-needed talents at home.

  • You spend a fortune on the nuclear program that you claim is only aimed for peaceful purposes, while turning Iran into little more than a gas station nation, with its precious oil wealth squandered and its facilities on the verge of collapse through neglect.

  • You have created a suffocating social atmosphere that has driven masses of the people to the use of hard drugs as a way of numbing their pain.


  • You look far and wide to support any and all terrorists. Your delusional theology mandates the creation of horrific conditions in the world so that your Hidden Imam is compelled to appear and establish his rule.

  • You spare no efforts at sabotaging any settlement between the Palestinians and Israelis. You arm and train all Palestinian factions such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and any and all that come.

  • You direct similar criminal schemes on your eastern flank, in Afghanistan. You consider any democratic system as the enemy of Islamofascism, and rightfully so.

  • You work ceaselessly, expand Iran's stolen funds, and do all you can in support of your Shia co-fascists Hezbollah in Lebanon.

  • Your hands are dripping with the blood of thousands of Iraqis, victims of your bloodthirsty kin mercenaries aiming to kill a budding democracy in Iraq next door.

  • You supply your mercenaries with armor-piercing projectiles for killing and maiming the coalition forces in Iraq. Your cowardly killing by proxy, using these roadside planted bombs, has taken the lives of nearly 200 Americans.

  • You interpret the highly subdued reactions of the coalition to your savage actions as indications of weakness. So, you find it in yourself to venture into direct confrontation by capturing lightly-armed British sailors and marines in Iraqi waters.

Misguided advocates of negotiation with the mullahs, beware. The mullahs are on an Allah-mandated mission. They are intoxicated with Petrodollars and aim to settle for nothing less than complete domination of the world under the Islamic ummeh. It is precisely for this reason that they consider America and the West as "Ofooli," setting-dying system, while they believe their Islamism as "Tolooi," rising-living order. They are in no mood of negotiating for anything less than the total surrender of democracy, the very anathema to Islamism.

And to you, the misguided mullah Ali Khamenei, don't be fooled by the sycophants who misinform you. Don't threaten the West by either as-yet-to-come online nuclear weapons or your fantasized sleeper cells. You will be terribly disappointed when Iranian expatriates everywhere will be among the very first to help the authorities find your sleeper cells, if any actually exist, and put them into permanent sleep.

Freedom may suffer retreats periodically and tyranny may advance occasionally. Yet, free people everywhere will meet any challenge and pay any price to safeguard the precious treasure of freedom for themselves and the finest bequeath they can leave for the next generation.

To Go To Top

Posted by Ken Heller, March 29, 2007.

This comes from Ruth and Jacker Lauber.

With Pesach soon upon them, the Jewish community in Madrid found themselves in a desperate situation. There was an acute shortage of horseradish. (Now many of you may know that horseradish is the key seder ingredient, and not only that fiery condiment for gefilte fish, and which is also known as chrain).

A hue and cry arose and the entire community was mobilized in an effort to prevent this shonda (shame, tragedy). All the European Union Countries gave them the same reply, "Sorry, we have none to send." In desperation, the Rabbi phoned one of his Yeshiva friends in Tel Aviv and begged him to send a crate of horseradish by air freight to Madrid.

Two days before Pesach, a crate of grade Aleph, tear-jerking, Israeli horseradish was loaded at Ben Gurion Airport onto the EL Al 789 flight to Madrid, and all seemed to be well. Unfortunately, when the Rabbi went to the Madrid Airport to claim the horseradish he was informed that a wildcat strike had just broken out and no shipments would be unloaded for at least four days. As a result:

The chrain in Spain stayed mainly on the plane.

Ken Heller is a pro-Israel activist and a member of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans For A Safe Israel. He can be reached at kayjayphilly@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, March 29, 2007.

Goals of Arab peace initiative: Gain support for unity government, international blockade of Israel

While the world sees the Arab Summit peace initiative as a serious proposal, for the Palestinian Authority (PA) it is a well-orchestrated PR strategy that has nothing to do with bringing about peace. By proposing conditions it knows Israel can never accept, the PA hopes to renew international political and financial support for itself while isolating Israel as intransigent.

According to the new PA Foreign Minister Ziyad Abu Amr, the goals of the Arab Summit include "lifting from it [the PA] the international blockade." In exchange, he says, "Israel must be put under an international blockade."

A cartoon in today's official PA daily stresses that the goal is to receive foreign money. The words "Arab Summit" are written in the shape of a key to release a Palestinian Authority imprisoned by the financial blockade.

At the heart of the Arab plan are three demands that every Israeli government and the overwhelming majority of Israelis have rejected repeatedly:

- Israel's moving from its current borders to the 1949-1967 ceasefire lines
-- Israel's giving away parts of Jerusalem
-- Israel's absorbing millions of Arab residents of refugee camps

The Arab world is presenting these demands as a take-it-or-leave-it proposal: "[PA] Information Minister, Dr. Mustafa Al-Barghuthi... reiterated the Palestinian stance, which opposes any change in the Arab initiative."

By packaging the plan as the first sincere peace offer from the Arab world, the PA hopes the plan will appeal to the international community -- even though PA leaders know full well that Israel cannot accept it.

As part of the strategy to paint Israel into a diplomatic corner, PA leaders are praising this plan as the last and only chance for peace. Even though he knows the plan is a non-starter, for example, PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas called it the "only chance for peace," and said, "I think the Arab initiative is the most precious and important [plan] proposed since 1948 for a solution of the Palestinian problem and the occupation." [Palestine Times, March 28, 2007]

The purpose of this public relations initiative, therefore, is to gain international economic aid and political recognition for the Palestinian Authority government. It also cleverly camouflages the fact that this government is partnered with Hamas, which still presents the destruction of Israel and the genocide of Jews as God's unchanging imperative. According to the PA plan, Europe will accept this deal and Israel will be isolated as the spoiler of peace.

Below are further translations related to the Arab League proposal:

Palestinian Authority Information Minister, Dr. Mustafa Al-Barghuthi:

"[PA] Information Minister, Dr. Mustafa Al-Barghuthi expressed his opposition to any Israeli attempt and to any pressure for change in the Arab initiative in the Riyadh summit. Al-Barghuthi reiterated the Palestinian stance, which opposes any change in the Arab initiative, and in particular, the pressures put forth for a change in the initiative's clauses related to the Palestinian refugees' return. He confirmed the adherence to the refugees' right of return to their land and their property, which they were banished from, and to grant them their rights, as was established in the UN resolution 194." -- [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 23, 2007]

Dr. Ziyad Abu Amr, PA Foreign Minister. First he speaks of it as a chance for peace, and then he talks about all the political benefits of accepting the plan. He also says he knows Israel will ruin this chance for peace, and international isolation will be result:

'For the first time, the Arabs here are united on a practical and applicable peace initiative. The Arab initiative has the benefit of a consensus, and now it has gained the world' s attention, and even the Israelis are talking about the important foundations of a peace initiative...The Arab Summit can give a great support to the national unity government, not only on the economic level, but also political support, so that it will have a significant voice in international circles and especially in Europe...and that the Palestinian issue will receive the necessary support, and that the summit will succeed in promising cooperation and recognition in the national unity government and lifting from it the international blockade...The Arab efforts to achieve just and inclusive peace in the region must continue, and Israel must be put under an international blockade, if it insists on rejecting what is being generally accepted by the Arabs and the international community...From our experience, Israel avoids and tries to destroy any effort that has a chance of succeeding.' -- [Al-Ayyam, March 28, 2007]

Editorial in today's Al Quds:

"The Arab capitals...have no illusions about the intentions of the Israeli government who oppose peace...When the Riyadh summit throws the ball to the Israel' s side, then this state will be exposed to the international community, following ten years of putting the blame on the Arab side, and especially the Palestinian side." -- [Al Quds, March 29, 2007]

Itamar Marcus is director of PMW -- Palestinian Media Watch -- (http://www.pmw.org.il). PMW is based in Jerusalem. Barbara Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's North American representative.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 29, 2007.


With UNIFIL help, Lebanon was supposed to patrol its border, prevent Hizbullah from rearming, disarm all the terrorist organizations including Hizbullah, and keep Hizbullah men and activity away from the border. It did not.

Border incidents have been few, but only because Hizbullah is preoccupied with rearming. Once rearmed, it is expected to resume bold attacks (IMRA, 3/5).

This is another UNO failure as well as a failure of Israeli military and diplomacy. The IDF failed to smash Hizbullah sufficiently or to punish Syria for arming it. The diplomacy relied upon the UNO, although nationalist commentators warned that the UNO would be just a cover for Hizbullah rearming. They were right, as usual. When will the government listen to the commentators?


The government of Israel still follows its guidelines discriminating against protestors of expulsion of Jews from the Territories. These guidelines prohibit prosecutors from closing cases for "lack of public interest" (the usual excuse for closing cases against police brutality and framing). The guidelines call for pursuing cases even of no evidence, for demanding harsh penalties for first-time, non-violent, and youthful offenders even if just civil disobedience (which is allowed when roads are blocked by unions or students). Sometimes the mere presence of patriotic and religiously observant youth caused them to be arrested. Light sentences are to be appealed, if the "crime" is ideological (but not when Arabs protest violently).

Example: "It should be emphasized that these cases cannot be closed by the investigative unit because of lack of evidence or lack of public interest, but only with permission from the State Prosecutor." (IMRA, 3/3.)

Israel is a police state that discriminates against patriotic and religious Jews.


Hillel Halkin invariably rejects an impractical, phony peace proposal, but then proposes accepting a significant part of it. First he finds the Saudi plan impractical, because it asks Israel to let itself be overrun by refugee descendants. Then he suggests that Israel accept "some" descendants, pay off the rest, and give up much of the Territories (NY Sun, 3/13, Op-Ed).

Why should Israel accept any responsibility for descendants of Arabs who wantonly tried to dispossess thee Jews, failed, and fled? They should compensate Israel! Once it accepts such, the world would condemn it and demand it take in more. Slippery slope!

Most of the Arabs whom UNRWA counted as refugees were not by normal definition. Why doesn't Halkin propose compensation for real Jewish refugees?


The P.A. is preparing to field many more troops. It is building massive fortifications. It may not be able to feed its people, but spends a lot arming them (and hopes that "humanitarian" organizations would pay for the food). The result would be a much more difficult IDF effort to break through, when war resumes. Israeli casualties would be higher.

Israeli security officials have warned the government about this, but the government does not intervene while the Arabs are not ready. What is worse, the government wants to extend this non-intervention to Judea-Samaria.

The policy is to ask the Muslims to stop using their weapons. That leaves it up to them when to resume using them, if they even stop. Sensible policy should be to insist that the Muslims give up their weapons (and to enforce that insistence).

A harsh Israeli crackdown and an end to full autonomy for the P.A. is necessary, however unpopular it would be in the media and the State Dept. (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 3/8).

The government of Israel doesn't run the country for its people or for its purpose but largely for the media and the State Dept..


PM Olmert testified to an investigation commission that war in Lebanon was decided upon months before Israeli forces moved in. The Knesset Defense Committee chair testified that two months before, Olmert reduced the IDF budget by half a billion shekels, and made no military preparations (IMRA, 3/8).

His story keeps changing. He is trying to duck responsibility for losing the war. One way is by claiming to have won.


The UNO, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and others checked metals and dozens of samples of soil at various depths in Lebanon. They found radioactivity consistent with the environment there. There was no evidence that Israel used depleted uranium shells in the war, there (IMRA, 3/8).

The Arabs constantly slander Israel. Then Israel and foreign agencies solemnly investigate. The investigators find no truth to the complaints, though sometimes the UNO nevertheless accuses Israel anyway. They ought to ignore Arab complaints, which just are propaganda and hysteria.

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@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, March 29, 2007.

The following is taken from Chapter 12 from the 10th grade history textbook in use in the United Federation of Palestine, copyright 2013.

It was back in the glorious year of 2007, which was exactly 1429 years since the Hijra, when Ahmad Tibi became President of Israel. That auspicious development took place under some unusual arrangements in Israel regarding the role and functioning of the President of the Jewish state. Moshe Katsav had been President for some time when he was forced to step down, due to his being indicted for sexual misconduct. Under those circumstances, Israeli law declared that the Chairperson of the Knesset assumes the position of Acting President in Israel. In the case of the Katsav deposal, the Chairperson of the Knesset was Dahlia Itzik from the Israeli Labor Party, who immediately assumed the mantel of Acting President.

Now under the rules governing the acting presidency, Itzik served as Acting President for only as long as she was in the country and was physically capable of fulfilling the presidential duties.

Things began to unravel when Itzik decided to attend a professional conference on the educational merits of cosmetics, held in the Cayman Islands, those very same islands in which so many Israeli politicians kept their bank accounts back then. While she was basking in the Caribbean sun, Itzik turned over the reins of the presidency to the deputy chairperson of the Knesset, according to the operating rules for such an event. And that is how Ahmad Tibi, the Deputy Chair of the Knesset, became the Acting President of Israel in late 2007.

Tibi, unlike Katsav and most of the previous presidents of Israel, was determined not to serve as a mere figurehead and butt of mockery heading a powerless presidency. Tibi decided to harness the powers of clemency granted to the President under Israeli law in order to promote his political agenda.

That agenda of course was Israel's complete dismemberment and annihilation. But President Ahmad Tibi was willing to restrain himself and act cautiously and wisely.

His first order of business was to prevent the return to Israel of Dahlia Itzik, which would have required that he turn back over to her the President's Mansion in Jerusalem and the presidential powers. To prevent that tragedy, he began a process of negotiation with all Labor Party politicians facing impending indictment or imprisonment. He offered to grant them blanket clemency in exchange for their voting to remove Itzik from her position in the party and for ordering her to resign as Knesset Chairperson. At the same time, Itzik's cooperation was assured when a number of Hollywood ex-Israelis in the entertainment business made Itzik a fabulously attractive offer to begin starring in films.

Having dealt with the immediate threat of being forced out of the Presidency by Itzik, President Tibi then approached the Likud politicians facing imminent indictment and imprisonment. He promised all of these blanket clemency in exchange for stripping Katsav of his residual claims on the presidency and for conferring them formally and permanently upon Tibi himself. Hence, President Tibi was no longer merely the Acting President, but was the actual ninth president of the sovereign state of Israel.

President Tibi invited representatives of the Hamas and the Islamic movement of northern Israel to the President's mansion to help him celebrate his successful appointment. The gala celebration lasted 4 days. Because the kosher cooking staff had been evicted from the mansion, the Israeli Labor Party and Meretz were the only Zionist Knesset factions to send representatives to the festivities.

Once the place was cleaned up, President Tibi could get down to serious business. He approached the major political factions in the Knesset. Playing one off against the other, he threatened each party to retract his previous promise to grant clemency to party members facing imminent indictment and imprisonment, but would reconsider and restore his previous pledge as long as they assisted him in imposing his political vision and agenda on the country.

Of course President Tibi was too clever to attempt all at once to bring about the dismemberment and abolition of the Jewish state. Instead, using his powers of clemency as the whip to keep the ornery politicians in line, Tibi introduced new government decisions one at a time, in a sort of salami tactic.

The first step was to make sure that Israel would not re-conquer the Gaza Strip and drive out the Qassam rocket crews. So President Tibi introduced the New Gaza Policy, under which Israel would exercise self-restraint and respond to barrages of rockets or teams of suicide bombers entering from Gaza with passive restraint and turning the other cheek. After each attack, the country would simply call for more talks with the Hamas government of the Palestinian Authority. Israel would also do absolutely nothing against the operation of countless smuggling tunnels into Gaza from Egypt.

Next, the government under the guidance behind the scenes of President Tibi changed its Lebanon policy. Israel announced that in the event of Katyusha attacks on northern Israel, the most that Israel would do in response would be to bomb some empty buildings inside Lebanon. Israel would decidedly NOT send in any ground troops. It would also express willingness to negotiate the disputed Shabaa Farms territory.

After this, the new government, obeying its puppet-master President Tibi, agreed that it would reward all Arab terrorist groups that manage to kidnap Israelis by turning over to them hundreds of imprisoned Palestinian terrorists. All the past squeamishness about "terrorists with blood on their hands" was of course forgotten. Israel agreed to free hundreds of imprisoned terrorists even when the kidnapped Israelis in question had been murdered in cold blood during captivity.

That accomplished, the Tibi government began an initiative for a repeat implementation of the ideas behind the Gaza "redeployment" in the West Bank. The government announced that it was willing to cooperate with the Saudi "Road Map" master plan, as well as with the outline for peace prepared by the "Quartet". It accepted the Mecca arrangement by which the Fat'h and the Hamas shared power in a government that refused to recognize Israel, and Israel would immediately open talks with its representatives.

President Tibi was well along in his plans to abolish Israel when the most amazing development of all took place. The Kadima faction in the Knesset, led by Ehud Olmert himself, approached President Tibi with an official protest. "Everything you have done so far -- the New Gaza Policy, the new policy of restraint regarding the Hizbollah, the redeployment initiative for the West Bank, the wholesale release of imprisoned terrorists . ALL these are really OUR policies and OUR ideas. We are outraged!"

President Tibi, being a modest and restrained sort of person, listened to the complaints from the Olmerites from Kadima and took them all under consideration. Rather than slapping Kadima down and dismissing its members for their impudence, threatening to revoke his pledge of clemency for all Kadima members facing imminent imprisonment and indictment, President Tibi chose the path of accommodation and compromise.

"Here is what I suggest," responded President Tibi to the Kadima complaint. "Rather than quibble over who deserves credit for all these wonderful policies and strategies, let us simply combine forces and work for our joint goals together!"

And that was when Kadima and the Raam-Taal party decided to merge to form one single umbrella political faction, calling itself "Raadima", although the press dubbed them the "Tiberts". The Tiberts recruited new members from among Arabs and Jews from across the political spectrum. Its platform and visions appealed to many politicians from the Likud and the Labor Party. Meretz refused to join because the Raadima party did not promise an immediate return to the 1947, one without any negotiations.

The Raadima faction swept the next elections and formed a government coalition capable of implementing its peace plan at last. And that is how Israel ceased to exist and was replaced by the United Federation of Palestine, with capital in al-Quds.

For the history of the ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Haifa, Tel Aviv and Beer Sheba, see the next chapter in this textbook.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. This appeared today in Arutz-Sheva

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, March 28, 2007.

A rally in Nahariya last Friday, March 23, organized to bring public attention back to the kidnapped soldiers.

We are all trying to keep them in our hearts and pray that Udi, Eldad and Gilad will return home soon.

I thought you might want to see this picture.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 28, 2007.

"Abbas unit fires rockets at Israel
Fatah militants vow U.S. aid used to 'hit the Zionists'"
By Aaron Klein
From Wnd's Jerusalem Bureau
March 28, 2007

JERUSALEM -- The declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party today took credit for rockets fired into Israel, vowed to break a Gaza cease-fire and told WND U.S. financial aid pledged yesterday for Fatah security forces will be used to "attack the Zionists."

"Even if the American money and weapons reach only members of Fatah who are not involved in the resistance, it will find its way to the Palestinian resistance and be utilized for attacks against the Zionists," said Abu Ahmed, the northern Gaza commander of Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group.

Abu Ahmed was referring to $59 million the Bush administration announced yesterday it will send to strengthen Fatah security forces.

"This money is an attempt to generate civil war between Hamas and Fatah and to buy off Fatah. But we will never leave the political line of Yasser Arafat, who would not give up even one inch of Palestine," charged Abu Ahmed.

The terror leader said the infighting between Fatah and Hamas "was over." "Now there are only a few dozens who want it to continue, so maybe there will be localized infighting but we will not fall into this Zionist-American conspiracy of civil war," he said.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a branch of Fatah, is responsible for scores of shootings and rocket firings, and together with the Islamic Jihad terror group has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the last two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv last April that killed eight Israelis and American teenager Daniel Wultz.

Earlier today, seven rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip aimed at nearby Jewish communities.

Abu Ahmed told WND his group fired two of the projectiles while the other five were launched by Islamic Jihad. He said the two rockets fired today were "dedicated to Yasser Arafat."

Abu Ahmed claimed his group launched the rockets in response to "Israeli threats to the Al Aqsa Mosque and criminal Israeli operations in the West Bank against our fighters."

The Jewish state is not threatening the Al Aqsa Mosque. The Israel Defense Forces the past two weeks carried out a series of anti-terror operations in the northern West Bank aimed primarily at arresting Brigades members.

Abu Ahmed said if the Israeli raids continue "there will be no more cease-fire, and you can count of a large string of suicide bombings and rocket attacks."

In November, Israel agreed to a truce with Gaza militants in which the Jewish state vowed to suspend anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip in exchange for quiet. Since then, more than 170 rockets have been fired from Gaza, but the IDF has been restrained from operating in the territory.

Abu Ahmed's threats come as the Bush administration announced plans to ask Congress to approve $59 million for Fatah forces. The U.S. said the bulk of the new aid package -- $43.4 million -- will be used to strengthen Abbas' Force 17 presidential guard units.

According to the announcement, the sum includes $14.5 million for "basic and advanced training," $23 million for equipment, $2.9 million to upgrade the guard's facilities and $3 million to provide "capacity building and technical assistance" to the office of Mahmoud Dahlan, Fatah's strongman in Gaza.

The Bush administration in January pledged $86.4 million to strengthen the Fatah forces, including Force 17, Abbas' security detail, which also serves as de facto police units in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

At the time, Abu Yousuf, a Fatah militant from Abba's Force 17 security forces, told WND U.S. funds and weapons being transferred to his group would be utilized to "hit the Zionists."

Many Fatah security members from Force 17 are also openly members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. All Brigades leaders are members of Fatah.

WND reported Israel earlier this month arrested 18 Fatah fighters in the West Bank wanted for shootings against Israeli civilians. Seventeen of those arrested were also members of the Brigades, Israeli and Palestinian security officials said.

Abbas last June appointed senior Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leader Mahmoud Damra as commander of Force 17. Damra, who was arrested by Israel in November, was on the Jewish state's most-wanted list of terrorists.

"Christians offer 'repentance'"
Yaakov Lappin

Christian women at Knesset ceremony (Photo: Lyndon Williams)

Hundreds of Evangelical delegates gather at Knesset to celebrate Jerusalem's reunification, offer apology for past persecution

Evangelical Christians from around the world have presented a 'letter of repentance' to the Jewish people expressing remorse for Christian persecution throughout history, during a ceremony at the Knesset on Wednesday.

Pastor Pitts Evans of Virginia read the letter out before a Knesset hall packed with Evangelicals who arrived in Israel to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the capital's reunification, an event organized by the Knesset Christian Allies Caucus (KCAC). The event was also attended by Knesset Members Benny Elon (National Union-Mafdal), Elhanan Glazer, (Pensioners Party), and David Rotem (Israel Our Home).

"Many of us just came back from Yad Vashem," Pitts said, before reading out the letter. "This is man's feeble attempt to take a first step," he added.

"On behalf of the millions of Christians who love Israel and pray for her, we would like to repent before you before crimes committed against the Jewish people throughout history in the name of Christianity," Pitts said. "We have sinned against God and against you. We have not lived according to the mandate given to us by the scriptures; to love God with all our hearts and to love our fellow man as we love ourselves. May God grant you the ability to forgive us and may we be brothers and sisters again," he said.

"Please know there will always be a strong number of Christians who love Israel and will stand with her and seek the peace of Jerusalem," he added.

Knesset ceremony (Photo: Lyndon Williams)

Pastor Seymour Kook, of South Carolina, read out a "love letters to the God of Israel," in which Evangelical signatories said they were "deeply grateful for the root of God's olive tree (and) for every Jewish father of the faith... we stand in faith in our branch, without arrogance, with humility toward your God and the fathers of Israel, who took us in when we could not deserve him and could not find him."

"May Jacob be blessed by us, not scattered to the nations, but brought back on eagles wings, not inheriting his land divided, but yours, returned to you to steward until the messiah comes, and then forever and ever and ever," Kook concluded, receiving a standing ovation.

Reverend David Decker, an American Evangelical leader, delivered a prayer in which he heralded Israel's "capturing of its ancient heritage, the city of David. We must celebrate the modern liberation of Jerusalem," he added, receiving warm applause. "But the redemption is not finished," Decker said. "We stand before the holy mighty God of Israel as your holy people, Jews and gentiles, one people as you would want us to be," he added, expressing thanks "in the name of the beloved messiah."

"I don't think this is tourism," Knesset Member Elon told the delegates. "This is a spiritual experience, for you, and also for us. You remind so many Israelis what we are doing here," he added.

'Keen to serve Israel'

Elon said the grandfathers of Knesset Members on the panel would have reacted with disbelief were they told "that 60 years from now, in the shrine of democracy in the independent Jewish state, they would welcome Christians who came to honor the State of Israel."

"After Auschwitz, we are here, thank God. Isn't that a miracle? When we see you opening the bible and using it as a personal tour guide, it means the bible is not just a book, it is a real thing. God has fulfilled his promise to gather and return us from exile," Elon said, receiving an ovation.

During the event, a number of Evangelical pastors pronounced prayers in Hebrew and in English, and the delegates sang the Israeli national anthem, Hatikva.

Speaking to Ynetnews, Apostle Zilly Aggfey, a Christian leader from Nigeria, said millions of African Christians were keen to "serve Israel."

"African Christians would love to kiss the ground in Israel. They would love to kiss the feet of a Jew," he said. During his address to the conference, Aggfey offered an apology on behalf of Nigeria for cutting relations with Israel in 1973.

"My people did not know the implications of that," he said, adding: "Any nation that does not serve you will perish. Our economy went down after we cut ties, and we became one of the poorest nations in the world. Since we have restored relations with Israel, our economy is back up."

Josh Reinstein, Director of KCAC, told Ynetnews that the event was a defining feature of relations between Jews and Christians. "I believe this underlies the relationship in the 21st century," he said.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nadia Matar, March 28, 2007.

[Editor's Note: Despite opposition from the Israeli Government, a sizable group of people made their way to Chomesh in northern Shomrom, from which many of them had been expelled during the Great Psychosis of 2005. The photos comes from Arutz-Sheva's photo essay on March 27, 2007 (www.IsraelNN.com)]

Dear Friends,

I would like to share with you the experience a few of us had of the exciting last few days in Chomesh and hopefully pass on to those of you who could not be there, a so much needed shot of Zionism, adrenaline, renewed hope and faith.

The beauty of Samaria
Trekking through the mountains to Chomesh

Fearing that, like it had happened on Chanukka, the army would put up roadblocks already on Monday morning [March 26, 2007], our little group of 9 people decided to leave our homes at midnight Sunday night. In our van we packed as much as we could: a sleeping bag for each, warm clothes, helmets against police brutality, food, drinks and lots of strong will to make it to Chomesh. With me in the van were three of my children (Talya, 16 years old, Bentzie, 14 years old and Amichai, 10 years old), two other mothers and three other teenagers from Efrat.

Our first goal was to reach Shavei Shomron, the community closest to Chomesh where all the people had been asked to gather. Our drive took a little less than two hours and to our amazement -- no roadblocks. The rumor was that the army was probably going to let the people get to Chomesh, but only for one day.

In Shavei Shomron we met many other people who also had feared roadblocks and thus arrived that night. Everybody found somewhere to sleep. Boys in one building, girls in another. The women in our little group joined others who had found room to sleep in some side room in the main synagogue.

In the morning, after morning prayers, we gathered around the synagogue plaza, we were around 300 people. The organizers told us that we would be the first group to mach up to Chomesh at 8:00 am. The masses would be coming later in the afternoon.

The rumor turned out to be true: the army decided to let marchers go up, on condition that it would be by foot. No cars allowed. The army's decision to allow people to go up to Chomesh was already a first victory. After the authorities had threatened to not allow anyone back and even warned that people daring to march to Chomesh would be punished with a two year jail sentence and organizers would be fined with all the expenses -- the organizers did not cave in; did not agree to make any compromises and simply said: we are going up no matter what. We refuse to make any deals with you, we refuse to collaborate with you.

Alone in the area since the Disengagement, Arabs have turned parts of the Land of Israel -- in this case, the scenic road to Chomesh -- into a garbage dump.

When the authorities realized the organizers were serious, they realized they were the ones who had to bend down and allowed the marchers to go up. Sadly, this made us realize how things could have been different in the summer of 2005 -- had we not been stuck with the Yesha council as our leaders but rather with a leadership with no ties to the government, a leadership of uncompromising idealists who do not collaborate with the authorities.

At 8:15 we started walking. Each and one of us, even the children, carried as much as we could: sleeping bags, sweaters, backpacks with as much food as possible, tefillin for the boys and lots of brazenness. We knew it was not an easy walk. Three hours, all the time uphill. But let me tell you, those 3 hours will not be forgotten by anyone. The knowledge that we were going back to Chomesh gave all of us, even those not in such good shape, the strength to make it uphill.

No word can describe the beauty of the view we witnessed. Who needs to go abroad to Thailand when we got even more beautiful views and landscapes right here in our Promised Biblical homeland? The green hills, the fields of colorful flowers, the amazing blue sky, reminded all of us how beautiful Eretz Yisrael is and how insane anyone who wants to give it up is. Here and there one sees some Arab houses and even small villages, but mostly, the area is empty, waiting for the Jewish people to come back home and resettle their G-d given homeland.

During the march, army jeeps were driving by with soldiers waving hello -- happy that they were not (yet) asked to prevent us from going to Chomesh. When we neared Chomesh, we could see from far the ruins of the other community destroyed by the Sharon government: Sa-Nur. The last hill before one gets to Chomesh is the most difficult one- but by that time our excitement was so great, that no one could feel the tired legs and feet. We almost ran. At around 11:00am we entered what once was the beautiful entrance to Chomesh. Our excitement and happiness mingled with lots of sadness. Everything was gone, destroyed, ruined. The evil powers of the Sharon government made sure to clean everything away, even the sewage connections. All that we could see were some bricks left from the streets and here and there some steps that used to lead to people's homes.

Chomesh's water tower, the last vestige of a thriving community

The youth ran to the one and only structure left in place; the water tower. Climbing on top the tower they hung the 2 flags we had brought with us; the Israeli flag and a flag Women in Green had produced after the expulsion in 2005: an orange flag on which is printed a Magen David and the saying: The Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel.

We took a stroll around what used to be Chomesh. There had been the swimming pool, there had been the synagogue, there lived this family, there lived that family. Looking around one can easily see the Mediterranean sea, Tel Aviv, Natanya, Hadera; turning on the other side one can see Haifa and even the Hermon Mountains. One looks at this view and one asks: WHY? Why was this place destroyed? Why was this place abandoned? In Gush Katif they claimed it was because of the "many Arabs of Gaza" that make it impossible for Jews to live there -- a lie in itself as we know, but that was the official terutz...here in Chomesh, with hardly any Arabs in sight, what was their reason? And this is where you realize that there was "reasoning" behind the expulsion. Just pure hatred of the national camp by the left. What pushed them to destroy 25 Jewish communities was pure evil. A sick pleasure by the Israeli secular leftist camp to try and crush the traditional Jewish camp and all those who want this country to be a Jewish country.

Looking down from Chomesh onto the road, we all of a sudden realized that the road we had just one up, was black with people. What a sight!! Thousands and thousands more Jews were now trekking up to Chomesh. Arriving, after a three hour walk, were women with children and babies, men carrying their little one on the shoulders, teenagers, and even elderly people. No, not only youngsters were making it up the hill but lots and lots of adults.

Everyone that arrived found a place where he would spend the night. Girls in one area of Chomesh. Boys in another one and families in yet another area. Everyone made sure to gather wood for the bonfires that will be needed at night. Around 4:00pm it was already getting very cold and windy. Youth were building a house from leftover blocks and stones. At 5:00pm the organizers covered tents they had hidden there a few days before. Within a few minutes five large tents had been put up.

The stream of people arriving did not stop till late in the night. There must have been at least 6000 people there. Among them Women in Green activists Anita and Chaim Finkelstein, Renee Margolis, Meira Zohar, Kenny and Sandy Lerner and many more. It was simply amazing.

Around 7:00pm the official ceremony started with incredible fireworks that warmed everybody's hearts. Lots of singing, dancing and words of strength and Torah were spoken by different public figures and activists.

The night was not easy. It was very, very cold and by that time many people had finished all the food they had brought. Evil minds in the government had decided, in order to try and break the Chomesh supporters spirit, to not allow water and food be brought up to Chomesh. When the mass murderer Yasser Arafat, may his name be blotted out, was being held in the Mukata compound, the Israeli government made sure to tell the world that -- for humanitarian reasons-Israel is allowing Arafat to get pita bread and humus and drinks -- but when Jewish lovers of the Land are concerned, the Olmert government does not allow them to get supplies of food, water, diapers and coats that were so much needed.

Tel-Aviv skyline, 20 miles away -- within Katyusha range
The strategic Hadera power plant, 20 miles away -- within Katyusha range.

This did not break the people and we spent the night, close to the bonfire, warming ourselves mainly with the incredible feeling of satisfaction and success: we had come back home to Chomesh and even if the authorities will succeed in bringing us down -- we will come back and back again, till Chomesh will be rebuilt, please G-d.

The next morning, after morning prayers, our little group of nine needed to get back home. Even though the army had provided buses for people to go back, we refused to give them that satisfaction and walked back the three hour walk. Arriving back in Shavei Shomron we heard that the authorities had stopped allowing people to go up. Despite that, tens and tens of youth were going up, this time not on the main road but through the field and the mountains.

In the late afternoon a very exciting event took place in Chomesh. Limor Har Melech, resident of Chomesh, whose husband, Shuli HY"D, had been murdered a few years ago by Arab terrorists, had remarried and a week ago gave birth to a son. The very emotional Brit Mila (circumcision) took place on the ruins of their house.

Girls on top of the mountain

Another night was spent on Chomesh. Our little group of nine already was not there. Other people had replaced those who had come in the beginning. This morning (Wednesday) 1000 policemen came and evacuated the 300 or so youngsters who were still in Chomesh. I am writing those words while listening to the Arutz 7 news report announcing that there still are tens of youth scattered around the hills.

Even if by the end of the day the government will succeed in bringing down all Jews from Chomesh -- this return to Chomesh was an incredible success. We have passed on a clear message that like at the time of the creation of the State of Israel the Jews did not accept the decree of the British White Paper not allowing Jews to come to the land of Israel, we today do not accept the decree of uprooting us from our homeland. We have not forgotten nor forgiven. We will go back and back and back till we will be back in all places abandoned by the Sharon government. With G-d's help.

Nadia Matar

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 28, 2007.


The Bush Administration has stood down from confrontation with Iran and N. Korea in favor of its critics' suggested negotiation. Iran will gain nuclear arms.

Iran's ideology, threats, and support for proxy wars indicate that it is not likely just to hold the weapons. Otherwise, why develop them? What is Iran likely to do?

Iran would either: (1) Launch nuclear weapons, or wait until its missiles can reach the US, or distribute some to other rogue states or irresponsible terrorist organizations, so it can disclaim responsibility for the first few nuclear attacks; or (2) Support proxy wars more, with impunity because of its nuclear arsenal.

A policy of mere talk is not wise for the US and is even deadlier for Israel. Israel disclaims responsibility (IMRA, 3/2 from Caroline Glick), urging the "world," i.e. somebody else, to impose sanctions upon Iran.

Sanctions would have to be most severe to sway Iran from its religiously motivated course. I think we (the US) would have to take down the regime or bomb out its nuclear facilities periodically. There is a problem with Russia, which will sell Iran defensive systems against such pre-emption, as it is selling them to Syria, so Syria can defend its offensive capability against Israel.


Orientalism was a demanding, rigorous branch of knowledge about the Arab and Persian cultures. Nobody admits to being an Orientalist, these days, not after Edward Said's popular book claimed that the discipline was a Western racial supremacy ideology. He claimed that its alleged bias made Islam seem inferior and helped Europeans to subjugate it. "To substantiate his indictment, Said cherry-picked evidence, ignored whatever contradicted his thesis, and filled the gaps with conspiracy theories." Robert Irwin in Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and Its Discontents fights back, too late.

Actually, the brilliant Orientalists freed Europe from old myths about the Mideast, often sympathized with the Muslims, even too much so, championed anti-colonialism, and were as scholarly as English Prof. Said was not. Said's book was full of mistakes, misinterpretations, and misstatements.

Said's smears stuck, while criticism of his errors dripped off him. Said (using the Muslim tactic we see much of now) browbeat sympathizers into making more concessions, including control over publishing decisions, grants, and Middle East centers, turning the latter from a discipline into a pro-Muslim lobby. Said's star now is waning (Commentary, 3/2007, p.63).


The P.A. has been using the formerly Israeli communities in Gaza as rocket-launching platforms and terrorist bases conveniently near Israel. The latest news is of Hamas' construction of an Islamist university at the former Jewish town of Netzarim. Former Jewish residents ask what was the point of ejecting them from Netzarim, only to be replaced by a university that recruits terrorists (Arutz-7, 3/3).

Good question. The governments and media of Israel and the US fail to ask it. Instead, they would compound the disaster by expelling 10 times as many Jews.


Israeli military courts indicted 3,523 P.A. Arabs in 2006 for attacking Israelis, from throwing rocks to shooting at them (Arutz-7, 3/3).

Those are only the ones who were caught, and are in addition to thousands already under custody. At what point is the P.A. government to be judged a criminal enterprise and its people a criminal gang?


The fences and checkpoints that the Arabs complain about are seen by the Jewish population as a means of controlling Jews. The government can cut off or isolate their towns when it wants to demolish outposts (or towns). The new measures for traffic control, inaugurated as an anti-terrorism measure, are seen as a means of harassing Jews from Israel who want to visit ones in Yesha. After all, they point out, the Arabs are on separate inspection lines from Israeli Jews, so why must the Israeli Jews be on slow lines, too? Their leaders urge them not to cooperate with the new security rules, or they will suffer in the long run (Arutz-7, 3/3.)

The settlers have experienced their government as a hostile entity discriminating against them and siding with the Arabs. They have found the government duplicitous towards them. It does not trust the government, whose policy is divide and be conquered -- split off the Territories and lose defensive borders.


Hamas and Hizbullah run much of the terrorist operations in Judea-Samaria from Gaza. They use day laborers to gather intelligence on Israel (IMRA, 3/3). The US keeps demanding that Israel let more P.A. laborers in, as humanitarian.

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@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Dawn Treader, March 28, 2007.

This is by Caroline Glick. It appeared in the Jerusalem Post

In an open act of war, Iran Friday kidnapped 15 British soldiers in the Persian Gulf. Iran's act of aggression occurred just as the British voted in favor of a UN Security Council resolution imposing increased sanctions against Teheran for its illicit nuclear weapons program.

Several theories have been raised to explain Iran's behavior. Some say that the Iranians acted against the British in the hope that Britain would respond by abandoning its alliance with the US and swiftly pulling its forces out of Iraq.

Another theory is that in kidnapping the sailors the Iranians are seeking to reenact their ploy from last summer. Then, Iran ordered its Lebanese proxy Hizbullah to kidnap IDF soldiers in order to divert the international community's attention away from Iran's nuclear program. As is the case with the British servicemen, so last summer's attack on the IDF took place as the Security Council was expected to convene and discuss sanctions against Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Yet another theory has it that Iran kidnapped the sailors to use as a bargaining chip to force the US military to release Iranian operatives who the US has arrested in Iraq in recent months. Whatever the case may be, it is absolutely clear that the Iranians intentionally fomented this international crisis with the expectation that their aggression would in some way be rewarded.

AGAINST THIS backdrop, and given the stakes involved, it could have been expected that the US and its allies would be concentrating their attention on how to weaken Iran and its terror proxies and curtail Iran's ability to acquire a nuclear arsenal. But, alas, the US is doing just the opposite.

The Iranians acted as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was en route to the region. Since Friday, Rice has shuttled between Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan, and is on her way to Saudi Arabia. She is not working to coordinate moves to check Iran's increasing bellicosity. Rather, Rice is laboring to empower Teheran's terrorist allies in Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and Fatah. This she does by promoting the so-called Arab peace plan, which demands that Israel agree to dangerous and strategically catastrophic concessions to the Palestinian terrorist government.

In behaving thus, Rice is walking in the well-worn footsteps of her predecessors. Indeed, it seems almost axiomatic that when the going gets tough for US administrations, administration officials get tough on Israel.

AFTER THE Republicans won control of the Congress in 1994, then president Bill Clinton was hard-pressed to advance his domestic agenda. And so Clinton -- who had almost no interest in foreign policy in his opening years of office -- turned his attention to Israel and the so-called peace process, in which Israel was expected to give land, arms and legitimacy to the PLO in exchange for terrorism.

Clinton's penchant for forcing Israeli concessions to the PLO in the name of peace became more pronounced as things became more difficult for him during his impeachment hearings in 1998. As the House of Representatives poised to vote on articles of impeachment, Clinton twisted then prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's arm until he signed the Wye Plantation memorandum, in which Israel pledged to transfer wide swathes of Judea and Samaria to Yasser Arafat's terrorist government.

Clinton forced Netanyahu's hand in spite of the fact that, by 1998, it was clear that Arafat was actively enabling Hamas and Islamic Jihad to carry out terror attacks against Israel and indoctrinating Palestinian society to wage jihad for Israel's destruction.

But negotiating with Netanyahu was inconvenient. Netanyahu refused to implement the Wye agreement in light of Arafat's support for terrorism and forced Clinton to acknowledge that Arafat was doing nothing to combat terror. Unhappy with this state of affairs, Clinton set out to overthrow Netanyahu's government.

IN AN ACT of unmitigated contempt for Israeli democracy and electoral laws, Clinton sent his own election advisers James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Robert Schrum to Israel to run Labor party leader Ehud Barak's campaign in the 1999 elections.

The culmination of Clinton's campaign was the failed Camp David summit in July 2000. There, and in subsequent desperate discussions with Arafat at Taba, Barak agreed to hand over the Temple Mount to Arafat in addition to Gaza, Judea, Samaria and a pile of money.

Israel paid dearly for Barak and Clinton's behavior. In the Palestinian jihad that followed Arafat's rejection of Barak and Clinton's plaintive offers, more than 1,000 Israelis were murdered -- more than 70 percent of whom were civilians. Israel's international standing fell to all-time lows as global anti-Semitism rose to levels unseen since the Holocaust.

America too, paid dearly for Clinton's behavior. Rather than pay attention to the burgeoning terror nexus which had placed the US directly in its crosshairs -- in 1993 at the World Trade Center; in 1996 at the Khobar Towers; in 1998 at the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; and in 2000 at the USS Cole -- Clinton remained scope-locked on the so-called peace process.

Rather than acknowledge the existence and threat of the global jihad to US national security, Clinton pressured the global jihad's primary victim -- Israel -- into transferring its heartland and capital to the godfather of modern terrorism.

But while Israel and America bled, Clinton himself paid no price for his behavior. Rather than be blamed for the war he contributed so richly to enabling, Clinton is upheld as a hero at best, or at worst a tragic figure who devoted his presidency to the cause of peace.

Today, Rice's newfound mania for peacemaking comes when local conditions negate any possibility of peace. Just last month the Saudis promised the Palestinians a billion dollars and so paved the way for the Mecca accord, where the Iranian-sponsored Fatah terror group surrendered to the Iranian-sponsored Hamas terror group. In so acting, the Saudis brought about the formation of a Palestinian government openly committed to the use of terrorism as a tool to ensure Israel's destruction.

International conditions also ensure that Rice's peacemaking will fail to make peace. Regionally, Iran ups the ante daily against the US-led coalition in Iraq. Domestically, the Democratic-controlled Congress works daily to prevent the US from fighting its enemies. Globally, states as far-flung as Russia, China and Venezuela make deals with terror governments to check US power.

The program that Rice has come to the region to advance does not even have the benefit of a peaceful facade. The Palestinians make clear every single day that they do not and will not accept Israel's right to exist in any borders, and that they will not work to combat terrorism against Israel. The Arab League, and its member states, for their part, have repeatedly announced that they will brook no change in their "peace" plan which, if implemented will bring about Israel's rapid destruction.

In behaving as she does, Rice, like Clinton before her, is aided by a politically weak and strategically incompetent Israeli government that is willing to sacrifice Israel's long-term security for the benefit of prime-time photo opportunities with bigwig American leaders and Arab potentates.

Sunday, the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government has announced that it is open to negotiating on the basis of the Arab plan. As one government official told The Jerusalem Post, Israel will "not dismiss" the plan.

THIS IS Israel's position in spite of the fact that the Arab plan calls for Israel to surrender east, north and south Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and the Golan Heights to Hamas and Syria and for Israel to permit four to five million hostile, foreign-born Arabs posing as Palestinian "refugees" to immigrate to its truncated territory. As the "peace" plan makes clear, all these suicidal Israeli moves must come before the Arab states will be willing to have "regular" (whatever that means) relations with the indefensible, overrun Jewish state.

Commenting on the government's position, the official explained, "We would not reject this out of hand."

It is not surprising that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are behaving in this manner. After all, these are the same leaders who brought about Israel's defeat in Lebanon in last summer's war at the hands of Iran's Hizbullah proxy army. Last summer, Olmert followed Livni's lead in rejecting military victory as an option. Heeding Livni's unwise, defeatist counsel, Olmert postponed the essential ground offensive in south Lebanon until it was too late to make a difference and instead opted for a negotiated cease-fire.

As is the case with the Arab "peace" plan, the cease-fire Israel enthusiastically acceded to last summer was strategically disastrous for the country. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 placed Israel on the same plane as the illegal Hizbullah terrorist organization; prevents Israel from taking steps to defend itself; does not require the safe return of IDF hostages Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser; enables Hizbullah to rearm and reassert its control over south Lebanon; and lets Hizbullah's state sponsors Syria and Iran completely off the hook for their central role in Hizbullah's illegal war against the Jewish state.

Recent history shows that the US and Israel will both pay heavily for the opportunism of our weak political leaders. It can only be hoped that the Israeli and American people have learned enough from our experiences to demand that our leaders stop their reckless behavior before the price of their cowardice and perfidy become unbearable.

Contact Dawn Treader at dawntreader3@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, March 28, 2007.

If the Jewish people has undeniable rights anywhere on earth it is in Hebron. Hebron, numbered among the four holy cities (with Jerusalem, Tiberias and Safed) is the first Jewish city in history. It is the place where the Jewish national patriarchs lived and were buried. Their burial plot -- Ma'arat HaMachpela, the Tomb of the Patriarchs -- was the first Jewish property purchased in the Land of Israel, and one of the Jewish people's most impressive monuments was built atop it.

The Jewish community in Hebron existed for thousands of years until it was brutally displaced in 1929 -- after Arab marauders murdered, raped and burned to death scores of Jews and dispossessed the community of properties that included hundreds of acres of real estate. Not surprisingly, after Israel's conquest of Judea and Samaria in the Six Day War of 1967, the restoration of Hebron loomed large as a goal for many Jews. In 1967 a group of religious Jews rented the Park Hotel in Hebron for the Passover period -- and refused to leave. Pressure grew upon a reluctant government, which then allowed the group to settle on empty land adjoining the city, which became Kiryat Arba. But the Jews of Kiryat Arba did not give up on their goal of returning to Hebron itself.

A tragedy paved the way for the renewal of Jewish life in Hebron. In 1975 a baby boy named Avraham Yedidya was born to famous Hasidic artist Baruch Nachshon and his wife Sarah, who were among the first Jews to come to Kiryat Arba in 1968. Three months later Sarah found her newborn baby lifeless in his crib. The young mother was beside herself. "Everything in this world has a purpose," she thought to herself. "What was the purpose of her three- month old son?"

Sarah Nachshon decided that Avraham Yedidya would be buried in the ancient Jewish cemetery in Hebron. The cemetery had been last used to inter Jews slaughtered in the 1929 riots in Hebron. It is minutes from the traditional graves of Ruth and Jesse and overlooks Ma'arat HaMachpela. Perhaps, Sarah thought, this was the purpose of Avraham Yedidya, to take part in a sad but vital part of renewing Jewish Hebron. After almost fifty years, the Jewish cemetery of Hebron would again be utilized as a Jew's last resting place.

Late in the afternoon the funeral procession left Kiryat Arba for the ancient Jewish cemetery in Hebron. Then, suddenly, the mourners encountered soldiers and roadblocks. "No, you may not proceed to the cemetery," the soldiers ordered the mourners, "the cemetery is off-limits. You must bury the baby in Jerusalem."

One of the car doors opened. A short woman stepped out, with a bundle in her arms. "Are you looking for me -- are you looking for my baby? My name is Sarah Nachshon. Here is my baby, in my arms. If you won't let us drive to the cemetery we will walk!"

Men with shovels and flashlights, and women, Kiryat Arba residents, walked through ancient Hebron in the early evening. They passed Ma'arat HaMachpela. They passed the sheep sty atop the 450 year-old Abraham Avinu synagogue, left in ruins, destroyed by the Jordanian occupiers and Hebron Arabs. Blockades, set up to stop the crowd, were pushed aside. Senior officers gave orders over their walkie-talkies: "Stop them -- don't let them proceed -- but the soldiers, overcome by the scene, radioed back: "We can't stop them. If you want, come here and do it yourselves." The procession continued, past Beit Romano, Beit Shneerson, home of Menucha Rachel Shneerson Slonim, granddaughter of the "Ba'al HaTanya," up the steep hill to the ancient cemetery.

Sarah Nachshon released the body of her tiny son and it was lowered into the freshly dug grave, only meters from the mass grave of the 1929-Tarpat riot victims. Mustering her voice, Sarah spoke: "Four thousand years ago our Patriarch Abraham purchased Hebron for the Jewish People by burying here his wife Sarah. Tonight Sarah is repurchasing Hebron for the Jewish People by burying here her son Avraham."

Four years later a group of 10 Jewish women and 40 children resettled Hebron, moving into the abandoned Beit Hadassah building, just minutes from the cemetery. One of those ten women was Sarah Nachshon.

One of the most common questions I receive, from journalists and tourists alike is: What's it like to live in Hebron? What's everyday life all about?

There is a stereotype attached to places like Hebron, similar to the Wild West. In all honesty, it's generally not like that.

So, what is it like? Usually, life is a routine, just as it is elsewhere in Israel and around the world. I can speak for myself and I think this fairly represents most people here. I get up in the morning, pray, eat breakfast, and then go to work. There are many men who arise early for prayers at Ma'arat HaMachpela and then attend a daily Talmud class.

Each person has his/her own employment: there are men who study Torah in a yeshiva or kollel; a few men are sofrim (scribes); others work in some aspect of education, many here in Hebron or in Kiryat Arba. There's a doctor who lives in Hebron who has clinics around the county. We also have musicians, artists, nurses and office workers living in Hebron. Of course, during the day, the kids are in school, either in Hebron or Kiryat Arba. Those of high school age and above may study and live away from home, as is wont in Israeli religious society. After-school youth groups, clubs, library and homework assistance are all part of every day life.

Shopping, a post office, doctors and dentists, a medical center with up-to-date technology can all be found in Kiryat Arba. There are several supermarkets that are less than 5-10 minutes from our homes. Orders can also be given over the phone and delivered to our door. In other words, for the most part, it's not difficult to be self-sufficient within a radius of 10 minutes from our homes.

So when is life not so normal? One day last week my cell phone rang at about 4:50 in the morning. One of my colleagues was on the phone: Excitedly she said, "Get here fast, the police are here..." (In truth, not even my wife can get me out of bed so fast, especially at that time of the morning, but...)

And of course, as I write ( March 20), the Hebron community's purchase of Beit HaShalom (The House of Peace), between Kiryat Arba and Hebron, and our moving into the building, has radically changed my personal daily schedule and the lives of many others.
(See: http://www.hebron.com/english/article.php?id=315.) Many Hebron families have, as a result of the purchase, moved into the new building, albeit temporarily, in order to maintain possession of the structure. People are spending days and nights there, helping with necessary renovations. Hebron's Talmud Torah has started giving classes there. A neighborhood, where up until a few days ago Jews had no presence, is now thriving with Jewish life: men, women, many children and multitudes of visitors.

This kind of event generally does not occur elsewhere. In Hebron, this is the second time in a year that this type of 'adventure' has transpired. So in some ways it could be concluded that life in Hebron is quite different from just about anywhere else in the world.

And of course it's not normal for your own government to restrict your movements and ignore your most basic rights in the city where you live. Today Jews are allowed to enter only three percent of the municipal area of Hebron. Yet thousands of Arabs continue to live in the Israeli zone. The Palestinian Authority is deliberately establishing institutions in this area for the express purpose of "strangling" the Jewish community by attracting masses of Arabs.

Although the 1997 "Hebron Accord" stipulated that Jews should enjoy total freedom of movement in Hebron and the right to visit and worship at shrines such as Elonei Mamre and the Tomb of Otniel ben Katz, its provisions are totally ignored. Jews find it virtually impossible to register title to land. In the past 20 years the Israeli government has issued permits for only three buildings. Offspring of the Jewish community who marry and wish to live in their community cannot do so -- due to the racist Jews-only building restrictions.

Under blatantly discriminatory guidelines from the State Attorney's Office, the Israeli government uses law-enforcement as a technique to harass the Jewish community. The procedures require the police to invest unprecedented resources in personnel, funds and motor vehicles in order to monitor the Jews. As a direct result of this over-enforcement there is wholesale opening of investigation files for trifling offenses and inconsequential activities, often ending with acquittals or closure of files on technical grounds. This adds up to a grievous, ongoing blow to the personal freedoms of the Jewish residents of Hebron, coupled with cumulative damage in the form of files that besmirch the inhabitants with criminal records -- files that would not have been opened anywhere else in Israel.

One last point: it is important to keep in mind that no one is being forced to live in Hebron. All the people who reside here do so because they want to be here. Anyone who wishes to leave, for any reason, can do so. However, most people stay, regardless of the difficulties and the 'abnormalities,' despite the terror attacks and murders that have claimed dozens of casualties in Hebron's Jewish community since the "second Intifada" that began in September 2000.

They remain because it is a privilege to live in Israel's first Jewish city, and to walk in the footsteps of Avraham and Sarah, and King David. Despite the problems, Hebron is our home, and we are honored to be residents of such a holy city.

Of course, there are those who would say that we are crazy for wanting to live here. So be it: Crazy or not, Hebron is here to stay, and so are its Jewish inhabitants. comments

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

This appeared on AFSI's Mideast Outpost
http://mideastoutpost.com). (Outpost Editor's Note: This is the first in a series of articles Outpost will publish on the most important Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, the much maligned "settlements.")

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 28, 2007.

There are 3 stories below. Americans have been led to believe that the Administration does not fund terrorist organisations. Story 1: This week Rice revealed what the rest of the planet has known for years -- we do give money, millions of dollars to fund the campaign of terror and bloodshed against Israel. In the second story, the "moderate" Saudis, America's good friend and mentor, say to Israel -- your choice: suicide or war. The third story has more details on which terrorists gets U.S. money.

"Rice reveals US intentions for 'parallel' talks with Israel, PA"
By israelinsider staff
http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Article%255El11016&enPage =ArticlePage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone= Diplomacy&enScript=PrintVersion.jsp&
March 26 2007

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met in Jerusalem Sunday for three hours. No details of the meeting were released but the leaders confirmed that they are scheduled to meet again on Monday.

The focus of the meeting was the Palestinian issue, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice revealing a new approach to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts, saying she would pursue "parallel" talks with the two parties on a common agenda in order to "move forward on forming a Palestinian state," Ynetnews reported.

Rice's plan is a departure from Israel's policy of not conducting talks with Abbas now that he has formed a unity government with Hamas.

"Now we are in a situation in which I think a bilateral approach, in which I talk in parallel to the parties ... is the best way," Rice said at a news conference with Abbas, Ynetnews reported.

Rice's meeting with Abbas was the first since the terrorist group Hamas and Abbas' Fatah Party formed a new unity government last week.

The US is working towards an Israeli-Arab summit, which would be mediated by the Quartet, that would be scheduled for the end of May. Rice's current tour in the Middle East will establish the groundwork for the negotiations.

According to Palestinian officials, the United States did not agree to recognize the Palestinian government but Rice said the Bush administration would assess the actions of the new coalition government.

The US has sent mixed messages by demanding that Palestinian government comply with the Quartet's stipulations and at the same time not denouncing the government outright.

On Monday Secretary of State Rice is scheduled to meet Jordanian King Abdullah in Aman, then meet with Abbas again in Ramallah. Later Monday Rice will meet with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni before her second meeting with Olmert.

"Accept peace plan or face war, Israel told"
By David Blair, in Riyadh
March 28, 2007

The "lords of war" will decide Israel's future if it rejects a blueprint for peace crafted by the entire Arab world, Saudi Arabia's veteran foreign minister warned yesterday.

As leaders began gathering in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, for today's summit of the Arab League, Prince Saud al-Faisal told The Daily Telegraph that the Middle East risks perpetual conflict if the peace plan fails.

Saudi foreign minister Prince Saudi al-Faisal, right, and Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League

Under this Saudi-drafted proposal, every Arab country would formally recognise Israel in return for a withdrawal from all the land captured in the war of 1967.

This would entail a Palestinian state embracing the entire West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. Every Arab country will almost certainly endorse this blueprint when the Riyadh summit concludes tomorrow. Prince Saud said Israel should accept or reject this final offer.

"What we have the power to do in the Arab world, we think we have done," he said. "So now it is up to the other side because if you want peace, it is not enough for one side only to want it. Both sides must want it equally."

Speaking inside his whitewashed palace, surrounded by luxuriant lawns and manicured flower beds resembling a green oasis in the drabness of Riyadh, Prince Saud delivered an unequivocal warning to Israel. advertisement

"If Israel refuses, that means it doesn't want peace and it places everything back into the hands of fate. They will be putting their future not in the hands of the peacemakers but in the hands of the lords of war," he said.

Prince Saud dismissed any further diplomatic overtures towards Israel. "It has never been proven that reaching out to Israel achieves anything," he said.

"Other Arab countries have recognised Israel and what has that achieved?

"The largest Arab country, Egypt, recognised Israel and what was the result? Not one iota of change happened in the attitude of Israel towards peace."

Israel has numerous reservations about the Arab peace plan -- which was previously proposed at a summit in 2002. Israel fears any hint that Palestinian refugees would have the right to return to their homes in the event of a peace settlement.

Prince Saud is the 66-year-old son of the late King Faisal. Relieved of the need to seek re-election, he has held office for 32 years.

Flush with oil money, Saudi Arabia is playing a more assertive role in Middle Eastern diplomacy. As well as securing the Arab peace plan, the Kingdom brokered the agreement between Hamas and Fatah -- the two Palestinian factions -- to form a unity government.

But western diplomats in Riyadh believe this resurgence in Saudi diplomacy stems from more than the kingdom's oil boom.

The menacing spectre of Iran, the rising Shia power with nuclear-tipped ambitions for regional dominance, looms large across the waters of the Gulf.

Saudi Arabia is quietly moving to contain its bellicose neighbour. Prince Saud offered conciliatory words to Iran, laced with coded criticism. "We have no inhibitions about the role of Iran," he said. "It is a large country. It wants to play a leading role in the region, and it has every right to do so. It is an historic country. But if you want to reach for leadership, you have to make sure that those you are leading are having their interests taken care of and not damaged."

Saudi Arabia has privately urged Iran to stop enriching uranium, in compliance with United Nations resolutions and lay to rest any suggestion that it is seeking nuclear weapons. Prince Saud called for a "Middle East free of nuclear weapons" with "no exceptions for anybody, be it Israel or Iran".

Asked whether the kingdom would consider seeking nuclear weapons of its own if Iran managed to acquire a bomb, Prince Saud replied: "We have made it very clear that we are not going down that road under any circumstances."

He paused for a moment, before adding, "under any foreseeable circumstances".

"U.S.-backed force 'mostly terrorists'
Bulk of $59 million aid package to strengthen Abbas' guard units"
By Aaron Klein
From Wnd's Jerusalem Bureau
March 27, 2007

TEL AVIV -- A U.S.-financed and trained Fatah force in the northern Gaza Strip that surrendered to Hamas today consisted primarily of members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group, the declared "military wing" of Fatah, WND has learned.

The news comes as the Bush administration announced plans today to ask Congress to approve $59 million to strengthen Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah security forces.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is responsible for scores of shootings and rocket firings, and together with the Islamic Jihad terror group has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the last two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv last April that killed eight Israelis and American teenager Daniel Wultz.

The U.S. said today the bulk of the new aid package -- $43.4 million -- will be used to strengthen Abbas' Force 17 presidential guard units. According to the announcement, the sum includes $14.5 million for "basic and advanced training," $23 million for equipment, $2.9 million to upgrade the guard's facilities and $3 million to provide "capacity building and technical assistance" to the office of Mahmoud Dahlan, Fatah's strongman in Gaza.

Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted in a hearing she cannot guarantee U.S. funding for Fatah forces would not reach "the wrong hands."

Rice said she would reduce a funding request for Fatah forces following concerns last month expressed by key lawmakers that some of the money would be used for terror-related purposes.

The Bush administration in January pledged $86.4 million to strengthen the Fatah forces, including Force 17, Abbas' security detail, which also serves as de facto police units in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

At the time, Abu Yousuf, a Fatah militant from Abba's Force 17 security forces, told WND U.S. funds and weapons being transferred to his group would be utilized to "hit the Zionists."

Last month, Congress placed a hold on the $86 million transfer pending a clarification from Rice as to where exactly the money would end up.

During a hearing before the House of Representatives Appropriations subcommittee, Rice said she would make a new request for less money.

She conceded, "I will request less money, precisely because some of the money that I would have requested I did not think I could fully account for."

Meanwhile, a Fatah militia in Beit Lehiya in the northern Gaza Strip surrendered today to Hamas forces after reaching an agreement in which the Fatah militants stated they will evacuate the city and altogether depart the Gaza Strip. Palestinian officials told WND the Fatah force, directed by Dahlan, was provided with U.S. weapons and training and had been charged with competing with Hamas for security control of Beit Lehiya, a large Gaza city from which rockets are regularly fired into Israel. Some of the rocket attacks are carried out by Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

The Fatah force in Beit Lehiya consisted of about 40 senior officers from Force 17, the Palestinian Preventative Security Services and the General Security Services. The leader of the Force was Samih El- Madhun, who is also openly a senior leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

According to Madhun and to Fatah and Brigades sources, most of the leadership of the U.S.-backed force that surrendered in Beit Lehiya consisted of Brigades members.

Many Fatah security members from Force 17 and the Preventative Security Services are also openly members of the Brigades. All Brigades leaders are members of Fatah.

WND reported Israel earlier this month arrested 18 Fatah fighters in the West Bank wanted for shootings against Israeli civilians. Seventeen of those arrested were also members of the Brigades, Israeli and Palestinian security officials said.

Abbas last June appointed senior Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leader Mahmoud Damra as commander of Force 17. Damra, who was arrested by Israel in November, was on the Jewish state's most-wanted list of terrorists.

While Congress has been blocking aid to Farah forces, it wasn't immediately clear if the U.S. would continue to supply Fatah with weapons.

The last American arms shipment to Fatah publicly confirmed by Israel took place in May. At first, the shipment of 3,000 rifles was denied by the U.S. and Israel, but Olmert in June admitted the transfer took place, telling reporters, "I needed to approve the shipment to help bolster Abbas."

At the time, Abu Yousuf, a Fatah militant from Abba's Force 17 security forces, told WND while some of the weapons may be used in confrontations against Hamas, the bulk of the American arms would be utilized to "hit the Zionists."

Abu Yousuf said if there is a major conflict with Israel, U.S. weapons provided to Fatah may be shared with other "Palestinian resistance organizations."

"The first place of these U.S. weapons will be to defend the Palestinian national project, which is reflected by the foundation of the Palestinian Authority. If Hamas or any other group under the influence of Iran and Syria wants to make a coup d'tat against our institution, these weapons are there to defend the PA," said Abu Yousuf.

"We don't want to go to civil war with Hamas, because this is what both the U.S. and Israel want. This is our last option. We hope our brothers in Hamas won't oblige us to find ourselves in confrontation," Abu Yousuf said.

But the Fatah militant said the American weapons may also be used to target Israelis. He admitted previous American arms supplied to Fatah were used in "resistance operations" against the Jewish state.

"If Israel will deliver what it promised to Abu Mazen (Abbas), [meaning a] withdrawal from Palestinian lands, including east Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, remove all the checkpoints in the West Bank, release our prisoners, and find a clear solution for our refugees, we'll control our forces and the distribution of weapons," said Abu Yousuf.

"But if Israel doesn't deliver, and we find ourselves manipulated by Israel, we cannot guarantee members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Force 17 will not use these weapons against Israel. Our goal is to change the occupation," he continued.

"It's unnatural to think these American weapons won't be used against the Israelis," he said.

Like some other Force 17 members, Abu Yousuf also is openly a member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

Abu Yousuf said the American weapons shipments may be shared with other Palestinian terror groups. He said that during large confrontations with Israel, such as the Jewish state's 2002 anti-terror raid in Jenin, Fatah distributed weapons to Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

"We don't look where this piece or that piece of weapon came from when fighting the Israelis," Abu Yousuf said.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), March 27, 2007.

New York -- The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is urging the Bush Administration to drop the fiction that Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Arabs in general have accepted Israel's existence as Jewish state and seek a peaceful Palestinian state alongside Israel, following Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's comments to the media in Jerusalem on Sunday that, "I think that the desire for peace and support for a two-state solution is far broader in the two communities, among the Palestinian people and among the Israeli people, than just the two leaders [Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas]. It's, in fact, something that has shown up in all kinds of polls. It's shown up in all kinds of discussions with people on both sides that the Palestinian people and the Israeli people would like to have peace" (State Department, March 25, 2007).

Rice made further comments in the same vein about Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas today, claiming that "President Abbas truly desires to be a partner for peace. ... President Abbas told his people that he could end the occupation by ending violence" (State Department, March 27, 2007). Yet, only weeks ago, Abbas and his Fatah Party joined the Hamas terrorist government after signing the Mecca Agreement. Those like Condoleezza Rice who have hung on to the mirage of Abbas' alleged moderation must now confront the naked reality of Abbas joining an openly terrorist regime under an agreement which does not call for peace but for more terrorism; demands the so-called 'right of return' of Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants to Israel and thus Israel's dissolution; demands the release of jailed Palestinian Arab terrorists; and does not in fact even mention Israel let alone recognize it.

Secretary Rice's words are completely at odds with the record of Mahmoud Abbas' words and deeds and innumerable Palestinian opinion polls.

Mahmoud Abbas' own words:

  • On recognizing Israel:" It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel" (Al-Arabiya [Dubai] and PA TV, October 3, 2006).

  • Fighting Israel: "We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation ... Our rifles, all our rifles are aimed at The Occupation" (Jerusalem Post, January 11, 2007; Independent Media & Review Analysis, January 12, 2007).

  • On Jews: "The sons of Israel are corrupting humanity on earth" (World Net Daily, January 11, 2007).

  • On Israel: "the Zionist enemy" (Associated Press, January 4, 2005; CNN.com, January 7, 2005).

  • On suicide bombers: "Allah loves the martyr" (Wall Street Journal, January 5, 2005).

  • On wanted Palestinian terrorists: "heroes fighting for freedom" (Age [Melbourne], January 3, 2005); "Israel calls them murderers, we call them strugglers" (Jerusalem Post, December 25, 2004).

  • On Palestinian terrorist leaders Yasser Arafat, Hamas' Ahmad Yasin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi and Palestinian Islamic Jihad's Fathi Shikaki: "martyrs" (Palestinian Media Center, September 9, 2005)

  • On Hamas: "We must unite the Hamas and Fatah blood in the struggle against Israel as we did at the beginning of the intifada. We want a political partnership with Hamas" (Jerusalem Post, February 5, 2007).

  • On Yasser Arafat: "It is our duty to implement the principles of Yasser Arafat" (Haaretz, January 3, 2005); "We will continue in the path of the late president until we fulfill all his dreams" (Agence France-Presse, November 11, 2005); "The Palestinian leadership won't stray from Arafat's path" (Yediot Ahronot, November 11, 2006)

  • On disarming Palestinian terrorists: a "red line" that must not be crossed (Washington Times, January 3, 2005

  • On jailed Palestinian terrorists: "our heroes." (Israel National News, May 26, 2006).

  • On the so-called 'right of return' of Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants which, if implemented would end Israel as a Jewish state: "The issue of the refugees is non-negotiable" (Jerusalem Post, January 11, 2007).

  • On the Lebanese terrorist group Hizballah: A source of pride and sets an example for the "Arab resistance" (Jerusalem Post, August 6, 2006).

  • Saddam Hussein: "Saddam Hussein has entered history as a symbol of Pan-Arab nationalism" (Independent Media Review and Analysis, December 31, 2006).

Abbas' own deeds:

  • Holocaust denial: He wrote a PhD thesis and published a book denying the Holocaust.

  • Terrorist group Fatah: He co-founded with arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat the terrorist group Fatah, whose Constitution to this day calls for the destruction of Israel (Article 12) and the use of terrorism against Israelis as an indispensable part of the struggle to achieve that goal (Article 19).

  • Funding terrorism: as senior PLO official, he funded the Munich massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972.

  • Terror & incitement to violence: He has refused to implement the signed Oslo agreements and the 2003 Roadmap peace plan which requires him to fight, arrest, extradite and jail terrorists and confiscate their weaponry and end the incitement to hatred and murder in the PA-controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps that feeds it.

  • Terrorists' plan for more violence: In May 2006, he endorsed the so-called 'Prisoners' Plan', a document produced by jailed Palestinian terrorists, that endorses continued terrorism against Israel, legitimizes the murder of Jews, does not accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state, abrogates Palestinian obligations under the signed Oslo agreements and the 2003 Roadmap peace plan, and insists on the 'right of return.'

  • Money for suicide bombers' families: In December 2005, he approved legislation mandating financial benefits to be paid to families of killed Palestinian terrorists.

Palestinian Polls:

  • February 2007: 75% of Palestinian Arabs do not think that Israel has a right to exist; 70% of Palestinian Arabs support a one-state solution in which Jews would be a minority, not a two-state solution with a Palestinian Arab state living peacefully alongside Israel (Near East Consulting (NEC) poll, February 12-15, 2007).

  • September 2006: 67% of Palestinian Arabs oppose Hamas recognizing Israel (Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) poll, September 14-16, 2006).

  • September 2006: 57% of Palestinian Arabs support terrorist attacks upon Israeli civilians; 75% support the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers in a bid to obtain the release of jailed Palestinians terrorists; 63% are inspired by the Lebanese Islamist terror group Hizballah and seek to emulate it (Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) poll, September 2006)

  • September 2006: 61.3% of Palestinian Arabs support terrorist attacks upon Israeli civilians; 52.5% support rocket attacks upon Israeli population centers (Center for Opinion Polls and Survey Studies at An-Najah University, September 7-9, 2006).

  • June 2006: 56% of Palestinians support terrorist attacks upon Israeli civilians (Palestinian Center for Policy & Survey Research (PCPSR) poll, June 2006).

  • February 2006: 83.3% of the Palestinian Arabs oppose dropping the legally and morally baseless so-called 'right of return' of refugees and their millions of descendants to Israel and reject substitute solutions to the refugee issue (Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO) poll, February 16-20, 2006).

  • February 2006: 56.2% support terrorism against Israeli civilians (Jerusalem Media and Communications Center (JMCC) poll, February 8-12, 2006).

  • December 2005: 51% of Palestinian Arabs oppose the disarming of terrorist groups; 82% support the absorption of members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad into the PA. (Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, December 6-8, 2005).

  • December 2005: 69% of Palestinians see terrorism as legitimate; 65% support Al-Qaeda actions in the USA and Europe (Fafo poll, December 22, 2005).

  • October 2005: 60% of Palestinian Arabs oppose the PA disarming the terrorist groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Bir Zeit University poll, October 2005).

  • December 2004: 66% of Palestinian Arabs oppose the PA disarming the terrorist groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Bir Zeit University poll, December 2004).

  • April 2003: 75.6% of Palestinian Arabs support terrorism against Israeli civilians (Jerusalem Media and Communications Center (JMCC) poll, April 2003).

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "We continue to be perplexed that Bush Administration officials like Secretary Rice persist in making flat-earth statements about Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Arabs in general and their alleged desire for peace with Israel in a state alongside her. It is especially worrying that Secretary Rice believes that Palestinian polls bear out her completely false evaluations -- Palestinian polls have consistently shown extremism and support for violence to be widely supported by Palestinian Arabs. The evidence we have provided (of which there is much more) shows that these claims are simply not credible or accurate. By stating the opposite of what the facts warrant, Secretary Rice is misleading the American public and pursuing a policy which lacks any factual basis and which will lead to another terrorist state while appeasing terrorists and terrorism. It is vital to realize that policies built on illusions will tragically fail and the sooner U.S. policy is revised the better.

"It is crystal clear from these polls and a great deal of other data that Palestinian Arab society clearly opposes acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state and consistently supports terrorism against Israeli civilians in an attempt to undermine Israel's survival as a Jewish state. When consistent majorities of Palestinian Arabs are shown to support terrorism and non-acceptance of Israel, it is clear that there can at present be no peace process with such a society and its like-minded leadership. Under these circumstances, there should be no discussion of a Palestinian state. Rather than giving unmerited praise to Palestinian Arabs for moderation, the Bush Administration should fearlessly state the truth and make it clear that there will be no concessions, no negotiations and no American funds until the PA fights, arrests, extradites and jails terrorists and confiscates their weaponry and ends the incitement to hatred and murder in the PA-controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps that feeds it. All of these promises were made by the Palestinian Arabs in the Oslo I, Oslo II, Hebron and Wye Agreements as well as the Roadmap, yet not a single one has been fulfilled."

The Zionist Organization of America (www.zoa.org), founded in 1897, is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States. The ZOA works to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations, educates the American public and Congress about the dangers that Israel faces, and combats anti-Israel bias in the media and on college campuses. Its past presidents have included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver.

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Zwick, March 28, 2007.

This was done by the Al-Hayat Translation Unit.
http://www.daralhayat.net/actions/print2.php It is archived at

Tripoli (North Lebanon) -- The accusation imputed by Lebanese security services to "Fateh Al-Islam" group about being involved in Ain Alaq bombings in Mount Lebanon raised the issue of the presence of these groups inside the Palestinian refugee camp in Nahr Al Bared, especially that some persons who were accused are still in the northern camp. The accusation also raised some questions about the identity of these groups and what it was said about their connection to "Al Qaeda" organization, especially that they include, in "Samed" camp, activists from different nationalities: Syrian, Saudi, Yemeni, Algerian and Moroccan. This doesn't seem a sufficient proof of "Al Qaeda"-like activities related to this group. Information given to "Al Hayat" mentioned that it's a hybrid group that includes different security service members, as well as some elements upholding the "Salafi Jihadi" ideology and willing to go to Iraq.

"Al Hayat" visited the camp of this group in Nahr Al Bared camp, North Lebanon, and met with their spokesman. It asked the residents of the camp, the Lebanese security services and Islamist activists about this phenomenon: below is the full story.

Nahr Al Bared Camp

A man is lying back on his chair next to his shop in the Palestinian refugee camp in Nahr Al Bared in North Lebanon. He hung a signboard above his shop reading: "Circumciser of Al Saffouri Sons". The man is almost sleepy, the security situation in these days negatively affected the market. Last night, the camp witnessed the death of one of "Fateh Al-Islam" members during a clash with anonymous elements. He is the "circumciser" of the camp, who scares children every time they pass by his shop in the center of the market. He's a middle-aged man, tall and thin, with grey hair. A silent man, whose silence reflects the stillness of his occupation, he does everything without saying a word, giving the impression that he wouldn't answer if you ask him any question. Thus, we sought another man to inquire about a wise subject.

The Palestinian faction militants' dismays in Nahr Al Bared due to the presence of "Fateh Al-Islam" members in the camp is different from the one expressed by the residents. The militants dismay seems packed with politics and fears from the arrival of "Fateh Al-Islam" to the camp while the residents dismay stems from issues related to the inactive market and the lack of any flow of outer residents who come to the camp to shop. Some residents praise "Fateh Al-Islam" members and express their admiration to these strangers who came to the camp a year ago. They installed themselves in "Fatah-Intifada" movement camps in the northern regions and in the western north regions of the camp.

"They are strangers in the camp" is the recurring expression you hear from militants in Palestinian organizations in the camp. Most of them are Syrians; some are Saudis, Yemenis and Lebanese. Palestinians maybe come at the end of the list, while Lebanese security sources add Moroccans and Algerians to these nationalities.

Why did they come to the camp? How did their number reach 150 fighters? Some brought their family and rent houses next to the camp. There are no specific answers to many questions about the presence of "Fateh Al-Islam" in the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr Al Bared. If they came all of a sudden from other camps, a great number of them joined "Samed" camp in Nahr Al Bared in the period following the disclosure of their arrival. The Lebanese army doubled its check points on the entrance of the camp that doesn't exceed 1 km long. Some activists affirm that after the Lebanese army entered "Ain Al Helweh" camp, some members of "Jend Al Sham" group who left "Taamir" region, went to Nahr Al Bared and joined "Fateh Al-Islam". According to these activists, some Lebanese nationals from different regions joined them too. Lebanese security sources confirmed that almost five Lebanese, came from "Taamir" region, including a man called "Chehab Kaddour" alias "Abou Hourayra", from Akkar who went to "Ain Al Helweh" camp in the nineties and then came back lately to join "Fateh Al-Islam" group in Nahr Al Bared.

Residents of "Al Bared" are aware of the arrival of "Fateh Al-Islam" members to their camp or at least the events that brought them. Although the members of the movement- stemming from "Fateh-Intifada", which stemmed from "Fatah", the main movement -- are strangers in the camps, there is no deviation from a social strict order that refuses members from the outside. Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon have always been a shelter for strangers of various purposes and for other refugees who were thrown into Palestinian camps by Lebanese "communities". They are Iraqis, Syrians, Kurds and others who resided and expanded in the Palestinian camps in Lebanon. In addition, "Al Bared" camp is a district market; it is linked to the Lebanese regions by the road connecting Tripoli to rural Akkar.

This however, doesn't imply that the residents lack a common social fabric. Indeed, as other refugee camps residents, they come from Galilee villages; Safad, Saffouri, Saasaa, Loubieh, Khalssa, Safsaf and others. The camp is home for 35 thousand Palestinian refugees. Throughout the 55 years since its creation, it has produced an advanced architectural and civil pattern, compared to the other Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, despite junctures and mistakes.

The pictures of Saddam Hussein are widely spread everywhere in the camp: on houses and shops. It seems that the way Saddam Hussein was executed, stirred a wave of sympathy and compassion among the residents like in many Palestinian camps. This is undoubtedly linked to the mood allowing to accept a group like "Fateh Al Islam", in light of the news about the relation of some of its members with the "Jihad" in Iraq. This acceptance however, doesn't imply facilitating the establishment of the group or collaborating with them. Still, Nahr Al Bared camp, that is open to the social and security Lebanese and non Lebanese environment, wouldn't have resisted the arrival of fighters who initially came as fighters within "Fatah-Intifada", but then dissented and split in a process that is yet ambiguous.

The young man who is sitting next to his shop on the main camp road says that the accent of "Fateh Al-Islam" members is not Palestinian. He explains that their accent is "Islamist" and they don't converse much with the residents of the camp. They probably don't talk much in order to hide their nationality. Most of the time they use classical Arabic but the large majority has a Syrian accent when speaking.

In the vicinity of "Samed" center, their headquarter in the camp, a military car with a middle submachine gun and a veiled man is parked. A guard stands at the entrance of the camp; he doesn't seem to examine closely the few passers-by. It's the day that followed the death of a member of the group in a clash with anonymous armed elements. The anxiety was obvious on the faces of "Fateh Al-Islam" members, who are scrutinizing faces and moves. The guard said that the members are tired after they escorted the deceased in the funeral procession. We should wait until they finish their meal.

The waiting room can accommodate ten guests. It seems to be located on the southern part of the camp. The door leading to the inner camp discloses a small corner of "Samed" center; the area seems meant for training: some barbed wires are used to train for crawling. The small kitchen next to the modest reception room releases the smell of food and the voice of the chef talking to his colleague with a Lebanese accent. People who pass by the reception room to the inside of the camp are not veiled, unlike the members of the guard outside. The faces are confused and always evading. Some signs indicate that are not affiliated to "Al Qaeda" organization as it was said in Lebanon lately. "Al Qaeda" members who are in jail and in the camps are usually less confused. Furthermore, their beards are not similar to those of "Al Qaeda" members. Although these supposedly "Salafi-Jihadi" fighters are bearded, the way they trimmed their beards show that they are not expert in the matter. Nothing is concluding, these are mere observations.

A young man who talks with a Syrian accent draws closer followed by another cloaked man, probably Palestinian or maybe Lebanese, one of those who spent their days in the Palestinian camps. The cloaked man exerted a sizeable effort to provide the coherent language of any typical Sheikh of Salafi Daawa. He was about to succeed were it not for hesitating when trying to utter some words "Daawa" and Islamists experts are skilled at.

Buildings around the camp, where some of "Fateh Al-Islam" fighters must have rent houses for their families are lifeless. They look like uninhabited houses or houses abandoned by their residents. The district, unlike the other districts in the camp, is almost motionless. The majority of those passing by "Samed" center are young people who greet quickly the guard and resume their way without looking to the inside of the camp. Armed members flock out from the main entrance on motorcycles, heading toward the neighboring streets and coming back. Anxiety is apparent on all faces. Trust is scarce between passers by and armed persons, a feeling one gets from the signs people use around "Samed" camp.

Since the Lebanese security forces announced that "Fateh Al-Islam" group is involved in "Ain Alaq" bombings in Mount Lebanon, the camp is in a state of alert. The announcement held back the economic activity in the camp. The forces and the factions held daily meetings to discuss a possible attack by the Lebanese army after a noticeable increase in security control in the vicinity.

Abu Jaber, an official affiliated to "the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine" said that the solution of the "Fateh Al-Islam" issue will not be military. Should it be the way, it would lead to a real blood bath. He added: "everybody knows how these people came to the camp. The solution is to send them back to where they came from. In fact, this phenomenon has a close relation with "Fatah-Intifada" movement and these members are part of it, some Lebanese groups joined them lately. This is a potential solution."

It seems that announcing the emergence of "Fateh Al-Islam" by the end of September, last year and the then circumstances are at the core of a debate in the camp. Back then, the presence of Chaker Al Abssi and some of his fighters within "Fatah-Intifada" camp and other Lebanese camps, was seen as a natural aspect. Thisis was the case until a clash blew up in "Bedawi" camp. Some of "Fatah" members were killed and the Lebanese security forces arrested two members of "Fatah-Intifada" who confessed the presence of Islamists in "Fatah-Intifada" camps and a plan to hit the UNIFIL forces in South Lebanon.

"Fatah-Intifada" denied any link with these elements, while Chaker Al Abssi announced that his group is autonomous and promptly occupied the premises of "Fatah-Intifada" in Nahr Al Bared" camp. Lebanese security sources confirmed the relation of "Fateh Al-Islam" with "Fatah-Intifada", explaining that the story of splitting from the mainstream group is just a cover.

Sources provided "Al Hayat" with information and facts proving the connection between Chaker Al Abssi and his assistants with "Fatah-Intifada" command: the training camps affiliated to the movement in Bekaa and Bourj Al Barajne and Chatila camps in Beirut welcomed Abssi and his group when they came to Lebanon on July, last year. The same sources point out that the assistant of Abssi "Abou Medyen" is Syrian and is the leader of the group. The sources don't deny the presence of members from different Arab nationalities among "Fateh Al-Islam" fighters, as it doesn't deny the relation of this group with "Al Jihad" in Iraq, yet specifies that the insertion of these members aims at hiding their real identity.

The camps of "Fatah-Intifada" in Helweh and Kussaya in Bekaa welcomed fighters from different nationalities for military training. They were then disseminated according to the roles they were supposed to assume.

Thus, we are before different replicas of "Al Qaeda", or in a sector where "Al Qaeda" functions are mixed with the "intelligence" role. The same applies to the members who participate in these activities. The Yemeni or the Saudi who comes from "Jihad" in Iraq trains with the Palestinian or the Syrian that joined "Fatah-Intifada."

The Lebanese security sources stress that inducing Arabs from different nationalities to join "Fateh Al-Islam" aims at claiming that the group is an Arab "Jihadi" group and that its activities aren't linked to the conflict in Lebanon. These information are based on the investigations the Lebanese services held with arrested Saudis who belong to this group. Those arrested elements revealed that they came to Lebanon immediately because it's the "Land of Rabat" and "the Land of Nassra" and they are waiting to go to the land of Jihad in Iraq but they found themselves in Nahr Al Bared camp and nobody wanted to send them to Iraq. After they stayed for so long in Lebanon, young Saudis asked to meet with Sheikh Abdallah Al Bichi to request his advisory opinion about staying in Lebanon. The sources say that he came from Iran and stayed in the camp of "Fateh Al-Islam" but he didn't advice young Saudis to stay in Lebanon and decided to leave. He was arrested by the Lebanese security services in the airport, along with four other Saudis from "Fateh Al-Islam" group who were willing to leave Lebanon. It seems that the training camps in Koussaya and Helweh were part of the network that has been producing "Moujahedin" throughout the last years.

Few Sheikhs from Tripoli say that tens of young northern asked them their advice about joining the training sessions in these camps. Sheikh Bilal Baroud who is a Salafist and the Imam of "Salam" mosque in Tripoli says that before they call themselves "Fateh Al-Islam", they were "Fatah-Intifada" and they had relations with Abu Khaled Al Amla, this one used to call young people from the region to train them in Wadi Fissan next to Brital region (Bekaa). Young Lebanese went from Tebbeneh to attend these sessions. This happened one year before "Fateh Al-Islam" emerged.

Lebanese security sources say that during the phase that followed their attendance in the training camps in Bekaa, they went to Beirut camps. Bourj Al Barajneh camp was the center that welcomed them. They moved after July war to the North. Northern Islamist figures underline that "Fateh Al-Islam" group didn't limit themselves to stay at the camp but sought to gain sway among the Lebanese Islamists and recruit a number of Lebanese belonging to "Daawa". They succeeded in the deprived district of Tebbeneh in Tripoli.

The Lebanese army intelligence arrested a young individual, Khaled Mahmud, who belongs to the group of "Deniyeh". Mahmud was linked to "Fateh Al-Islam" group. He tried to blow up a bomb targeting the patrol of the Lebanese army that came to arrest him.

It seems that Lebanese Sunni Islamists didn't appreciate the emergence of "Fateh Al-Islam" months before it was introduced. The "Independent Islamic Gathering" official spokesman Khaled Daher comments: "We knew their purpose even before they announce it themselves. They declared that they belonged to "Fatah-Intifada", while the group claimed that they were using them and never included them among their members." They repeated the same words.

"The Islamic Gathering" sent during the month of Ramadan a delegation formed of its Sheikhs to explore their intentions. The delegation came back with a negative impression and revealed that the group intends to hit the UNIFIL. But Khaled Daher, the former representative of the "Islamic Jamaa'" he split from, discards any connection of this group with "Al Qaeda" organization. He points out to differences between the two patterns of action and thinking.

Sheikh Bilal Baroud, a member of the delegation "the Gathering" sent to meet Shaker Al Abssi explains: "When I met Abou Hussein Al Abssi I felt that he was in a confused situation and doesn't know what to do. Maybe he thinks that "Fatah-Intifada" used him in a bad way so he expressed his anger by controlling their places and announcing "Fateh Al-Islam". When I entered their camp in Nahr Al Bared, I was surprised by the armed people and the huge size of the camp. I told him: you are a colonel but it's a military error. Your identity is disclosed and you can be targeted. I gave him the example of "Anssar Al Islam" in Kurdistan and explained how their camp was targeted, everybody was killed in one raid."

The phenomenon of "Fateh Al-Islam" emerged in Nahr Al Bared after a difficult path in the training camps and in other Palestinian camps. The camp wants to resume its economic and social functions that have been hindered by the presence of this group in the different regions, in addition to the general Palestinian belief that defies disappointment and despair with a secret admiration for these groups who, according to him, does not belong to the "general pattern in the region".

A quick tour in Nahr Al Bared camp gives you two impressions: trade and business prosperity along with slogans of resistance in Iraq and Palestine. Multiplying the security procedures around the camp threaten its social and economic openness to the Lebanese environment, a trend that is different from the situation in other Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. The camp of Ain Al Helweh in South Lebanon, besieged for more than ten years looms in the minds of Nahr Al Bared residents. The problem of the camp started with the emergence of "Ousbat Al Ansar" group and the camp became an isolated security area.

Will the emergence of "Fateh Al-Islam" set off the isolation of Nahr Al Bared camp? One of the young people in the camp said that a foreign journalist made a mistake when he wrote the name of the camp: "the camp of Nahr Ain Al Bared". The youngster saw a bad omen in the confusion between these two names. He underlined: "we are expecting to live the same situation the residents of Ain Al Helweh camp endure".

"Fateh Al-Islam" spokesman stressed : "We will not leave the camp."
"Al Hayat" met the spokesman of "Fateh Al-Islam" who confirmed that the organization members refuse to leave the camp of Nahr Al Bared. Here is the text of the interview:

Al Hayat: what happened yesterday and how was the member who belongs to you killed?
"Fateh Al-Islam": The first investigations show that our brother was going to his place, he received a bullet in his basin, it cut the artery, so he underwent a surgery but he died. It was meant to cause a riot and they wanted it to extend. We ask God to protect the blood of Muslims in this camp.

Al Hayat: If the residents of the camp asked you to leave will you?
"Fateh Al-Islam": We have always said that this is the land of God, He grants it to the person He wants. We don't recognize borders, this is the land of Muslims and we have the right to have it. We consider that the affliction is a necessary condition to the person who follows this way and this principle. Everybody opposed Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) when he announced the Daawa and preached among polytheists in Mecca "there is no God but Allah". He stayed three years in "Choub Abi Taleb" until God granted him victory. The affliction is a condition if we follow this way and we are ready to bear these difficulties and more. But this became obvious and known to us, and we are working to convey this idea to the camp. So you are afflicted and everybody is subject to afflictions. But a moment later, this cloud is dispelled and the dawn shines. We consider that the pressure the security forces and Lebanese army exercise, aims at triggering a muddle inside the camp. Maybe they want to reconsider the issue of the camp and this is the beginning. We ask the residents of the camp to be aware enough.

Al Hayat: Are there contacts with the factions in other camp?
"Fateh Al-Islam": We consider that all the factions broke up with "Fateh Al-Islam" movement, people who follow up the news heard of the statements issued by the factions saying that they disclaim "Fateh Al-Islam" and there is no possibility to hold dialogue with them, that is their problem, there were contacts with Imams and Sheikhs, they came to patch up the problem and to put an end to this issue.

Al Hayat: Do you insist that you have no relation with the persons they were arrested in Ain Alaq bombings?
"Fateh Al-Islam": Exactly, we said that we have two of our members in the Lebanese jail, they were arrested in the Beddawi accident on November 24, 2006, but there are no arrested people among us.

Al Hayat: Are you ready to reach a consensus to put an end to the problem between you and the Lebanese security forces?
"Fateh Al-Islam": This is a vague and large matter. Let's see the consensus and then we will think how we are going to deal with it.

Al Hayat: Some said that the consensus would ask "Fateh Al-Islam" to go back to where they came from.
"Fateh Al-Islam": If it's like this, then we cannot think of it nor bargain over it.

Al Hayat: What's the consensus in your opinion?
"Fateh Al-Islam": We said that if there is an Islamic tribunal and its members are Muslims then we are ready to participate in this tribunal otherwise we are not ready to participate. Al Hayat: Concerning the death of one of your members, how do you see the aftermath?
"Fateh Al-Islam": According to us, the problem ended, we are seeking the person who did it, he will be punished and who isn't guilty is discharged.

Contact Israel Zwick at israel.zwick@earthlink.net or go to his website;

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 28, 2007.

This was written by Hazem Al Amin, for Al Hayat

To the editor,
San Jose Mercury News

Dion Nissenbaum's "Palestinians, Israelis agree to talks" (SJMN 3.28.07, 3A) is so full of misrepresentations and decontextualizations that one hardly knows where to begin. The list is so long that I most respectfully request that you accept this as an op-ed piece, and a long one at that, in order to correct the misunderstandings that Nissenbaum's article will surely generate. I will proceed in the order of her paragraphs.

PM Olmert did indeed reject Secretary Rice's urgings to discuss borders and refugees. But why does Nissenbaum not tell us why he did that? He did that because Qassam rockets still fall daily on Israeli cities, and because suicide bombers are launched from Gaza or the West bank on a weekly or even semi-weekly basis; but happily the IDF's amazing military intelligence and fast work results in the prevention of these suicide bombers from reaching their targets. What sense does it make to talk peace with an enemy that continues to bombard and perpetrate attempts at mass murder, with all the acts of terror accompanied by the relentless diatribe of genocide and promises of destruction? When the terrorism stops, peace talks can start.

There has indeed been little improvement in Palestinian quality of life. This is tragic, and important to know. But equally important is the "why?" which Ms. Nissenbaum somehow does not think to ask, much less answer. But the facts are quite obvious.

Hamas has tens of millions of dollars to spend on armaments and anti-aircraft rockets and millions of bullets and thousands of rifles and a burgeoning cadre of "police" and "security personnel" (aka, terrorists) on the PA payroll... but no money to pay teachers or maintain safe sewage repositories. Israel has paid tens of millions of dollars in employment taxes to the Palestinian Authority. Hamas officials have smuggled in tens of millions in cash (some counterfeit). And Arab countries continue to pump in millions monthly. Where did that money go? Meanwhile, Israel continues to provide electricity and water to the Gaza Strip despite the daily rocket attacks and Hamas' refusal to release the kidnapped Israeli soldier.

Exports from the Gaza Strip are way down and traffic through the border crossings from Gaza is slowed to a trickle. Why? Because Israel cannot know in which vegetable truck the suicide bomber is hidden. Absent the endless relentless brutal barbaric terror war being waged against it for 13.5 years by the PLO and Hamas (despite Israel's unconditional and unilateral pull-out from the Gaza Strip almost 18 months ago), traffic could flow normally, and exports would be up.

There are no shuttles from Gaza to the West Bank because too many times the IDF has caught terrorists or terrorist assistants with weapons and/or explosives on route to a target destination in Israel. Inconvenienced Palestinians is the price to be aid for continued attempts to blow up Israelis.

The number of physical barriers has indeed doubled. Why? Nissenbaum's lack of explanation makes it sound as though Israel is randomly and cruelly oppressing the Palestinians with additional barriers and lock-downs and road blocks. But the reason is obvious and simple: since Israel ceded the Gaza Strip to Hamas, the number of terror attacks has quadrupled. Only by interfering with the free flow of traffic can the IDF capture terrorists before they reach their targets.

As Nissenbaum correctly notes, "...virtually no aspect of the agreement has been fulfilled." But then she enumerates only those aspects that Israel has not fulfilled. For some strange reason, she neglects to note that Israel has not eased upon in its check-points and road-blocks and inspections at crossings precisely because Hamas, now operating freely in the Gaza Strip, has escalated its terror attacks. The only way that Israel can protect its citizenry, short of another war in which Israel will use its military capacity to crush Hamas and kill thousands in order to eliminate the dozen terror armies operating in the Gaza Strip, is to maintain strong defensive measures.

Only on page A-4, 16 paragraphs in to her text, does Nissenbaum get around to mentioning Israel's security concerns... and even then, almost en passant.

Nissenbaum fails to ask the two most obvious, and most tragic, questions that Israel must answer daily in its defensive measures against Hamas' terror war:

1.) "Where do you want the casualties?" All of the restrictive and inconvenient measures that Israel imposes on the Palestinians cause dire and harmful casualties: Palestinians delayed, inconvenienced, and perhaps even humiliated; an economy stifled; mercantile and personal movement impaired.

But were Israel to abolish these restrictive defensive measures, the casualties would be the scores or hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of Israeli citizens blown up, or burned alive, or shot, or stabbed, or kidnapped by all of the terrorists who would successfully reach their targets in Israel to perpetrate drive-by shootings, road-side bombs, truck bombs, car bombs, suicide bombers, arson attacks, and sniper attacks.

Where would any civilized person want the casualties?

2.) "Why is there no peaceful solution?" Because Hamas and Fatah and the PFLP and the DFLP and the PFLP-GC and the Islamic Jihad and the el-Aqsa martyrs' Brigade and Hezbollah and el-Qaeda and the new Resistance Committees all insist in word and deed that they will destroy Israel, even if they must do it one Jew at a time.

There can be no hope for a peaceful solution while the Palestinian Authority is under the direction of Hamas and its terror affiliates.

Palestinians cannot be expected to think of peace while their state controlled media teach children to emulate suicide martyrs, video clips portray happy child martyrs in the after-world and hatred is spewed daily in mosques and schools. See

Article 9 of the PLO Covenant declares plainly that armed struggle is not merely tactical, it is the overall strategy. Article 19 rejects the 1947 UN partition, thereby rejecting the Quartet's proposed two-state solution and advocating destruction of the entire Jewish state. Article 20 unashamedly deems the Balfour Declaration and the UN's 1947 partition both null and void.

Peaceful negotiation is emphatically ruled out by the Hamas charter. The Prologue, the Introduction, Article 7, and Article 13 all state that peaceful solutions and international conferences contradict the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement and that the only solution is through Jihad...until Israel is destroyed and all of its Jews are dead.

Is it reasonable for Secretary Rice to urge Israel to negotiate rationally with a terrorist leadership that generates hatred based on fantasies? The Hamas Charter states that freemasons, Rotary clubs, Lions and similar organizations stirred the French and Communist revolutions as well as World War I, that Jews formed the League of Nations in order to wage war on Islam, that Jews control the world media, and that Jews are at cause for all of the entire world's ills. The Hamas charter promises that these organizations will be obliterated when Islam takes control, as well all Jews, world-over!

The hatred that drives the Hamas terror war is not rational, it is not the result of any grievances or unresolved issues. It is psychosis. It is homicidal insanity.

Ms. Nissenbaum should read the PLO and Hamas constitutions before she does any further reporting on Palestinian issues. The documents can be viewed in English at
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/plocov.htm and

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, March 27, 2007.
This was written by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz and it appeared in Arutz-Sheva

While Umm Nasser Council Member Ziad Abu Farieh called the flood "our own tsunami," PA officials laid the blame for the disaster on Israel and the Western powers.

Israel Offers Assistance in Wake of Gaza Sewage Disaster

(IsraelNN.com) Israel has offered assistance to hundreds of Palestinian Authority Arabs affected by a flood of raw sewage that swept through a Bedouin village in the northern Gaza Strip Tuesday afternoon. Defense Minister Amir Peretz instructed the IDF to prepare for the possibility of evacuating the injured to Israeli hospitals. The village, Umm Nasser, is near Beit Lahiya and less than a kilometer from the Gaza Strip border with Israel.

At least 25 houses in the 200-family village were immediately swamped when the local sewage system's cesspool wall collapsed and pipes burst. Between six and nine people are reported dead, dozens are injured and some 200 are unaccounted for. Hundreds fled or were evacuated by rescuers, and armed Hamas members rushed to the area to search for victims trapped in the rubble of the decimated village.

The IDF is prepared to evacuate the injured to Israeli hospitals.

Angry residents attacked rescue workers, drove reporters out of the area and mobbed government officials who arrived at the scene. When PA Interior Minister Hani Kawasmeh arrived to survey the damage, his bodyguards fired in the air to disperse the crowd.

While Umm Nasser Council Member Ziad Abu Farieh called the flood "our own tsunami," PA officials laid the blame for the disaster on Israel and the Western powers. According to PA Environment Minister Yousef Safia, Israel threatened to bomb previously planned construction work for a modern sewage system in the area.

A Gaza-based spokesman for the ruling Hamas terrorist organization, Fawzi Barhoum, blamed Western economic sanctions on the Islamist-led PA for the dilapidated infrastructure in Gaza. Foreign funding for several sewage treatment projects was frozen by the donor nations after Hamas was voted into power in PA elections last year. PA Water Authority Director Fadel Kawash said that there had been a sewage treatment project underway for two years before it was ended due to what he called "troubles." He blamed Tuesday's accident on the poor local infrastructure as well.

[Editor's Note: As Nurit Greenger asks, "This is the Palestinians spin. Where are the $100,000,000 qIsrael transferred to the PA last month that could have easily fixed this cesspool? Disappeared, gone to what and where? Stolen, stashed away?

In 2006 the PA received $1.2 billion in donations from Arab countries, including Iran, and the UN. Where did it go? It was certainly not spent on public health, welfare, education, or infrastructure. It went for weapons and/or disappeared through corruption. Where are the billions of dollars we have invested in the PA bottomless cesspool?"]


The collapse of a septic pool in a Gaza village, killing five people including two babies, has been blamed on residents stealing sand from an embankment. Gaza City Mayor Majid Abu Ramadan blamed the collapse on local people digging sand from an embankment around the structure and selling it to building contractors. (AP/The Age-Australia)

Contact Avodah at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Professor Eugene Narrett, March 27, 2007 , March , 2007.
This comes from Professor Narrett's blogsite: "Israel End Times"

As the UN led by Russia and Islamic nations condemn Israel as apartheid and the British prepare to reduce their already puny forces near Basra; as Arabs ready an intifada over the Temple Mount again and Iran waves its rockets we must further highlight how the Oslo-Road Map process imitates the phased destruction of Czechoslovakia by British diplomacy in the 1930s. The lessons to be learned grow ever timelier.

The Arabs west of the Jordan River, both Israeli Arabs and those in the Autonomous areas have many more political and economic privileges and benefits than Arabs in any other state. From medical care to virtually free electricity and water, to uncensored media that spew Nazi-style Jew hatred, their liberties reach license. Similarly, in the 1930s "the minorities of Czechoslovakia were the best-treated minorities in Europe and the [Sudeten German] agitations were noticeable precisely because they were living in a democratic liberal state that gave them the freedom to agitate."*

The resemblance of that situation to today's murderously violent Arab agitation in Israel is clear. What has grown dangerously into a form of global incitement are the media that follow and sometimes stage or prompt anti-Israel spectaculars: the media has become the megaphone of the hidden hand of the diplomatic-financial interests. This is not just about market share: it is to isolate Israel as an "apartheid" state (cf. Jimmy Carter's book and the Baker Study Group's findings) and justify its destruction. Just as British diplomats and officials stirred up the Arab riots of the 1920s and '30s against Jews in the yishuv so their European colleagues enabled Hitler during the 1930s, encouraging even helping finance (via America) Germany to rearm, making statements in Parliament and sending messages in meetings on the continent that Eastern Europe was for the Reich. These same diplomats undermined or crushed all those who resisted their grand design. The victim is demonized, delegitimized and dismembered in the modern version of ancient cults of human sacrifice, -- just as Israel is demonized, delegitimized and being partitioned in our day.

Remember: even the 1949 lines are not recognized borders but armistice lines. Don't believe that the British Foreign Office or their friends in the State Department have surrendered the goal of an Arab Federation from Baghdad to Cairo. The situation in the Negev (as with the contiguous Gush Katif before it) shows it is being set up to be severed from the State, in whole or in part. A Polish-corridor style free access from Gaza to Jericho and the West Bank would be just the start and would lead to a similar result, Arthur Dove's Arab Federation, "its front door on the Mediterranean." Look at the parallel details in the policies of appeasement, war policies. Beginning in 1935, second President Czech President Eduard Benes made numerous conciliatory offers of self-rule for the Sudeten Germans. These included proportional representation throughout the Republic but they declined it. One thinks of the gift of total autonomy within Area 'A' with which the Arabs remain unsatisfied though Jordan and Egypt gave them no autonomy and little if any services; one thinks of the re-definition of Fatah as "moderates" and Abu Mazen as "a man of courage." Clearly self rule is not what Fatah wants. It was not what the Sudeten, German or British leaders wanted either.

In 1937, Czech Prime Minister Hodza offered to transfer all German administrators serving in the Czech government to the Sudeten area so Germans there could be entirely self-ruled. "Plan after plan for minority rights, economic concessions, cultural and administrative autonomy and even political federalism were produced by the Czechs... but brushed aside as inadequate..." Under British pressure, the Czechs even agreed for dual Czech-German nationality for the Sudetens (similar measures have been proposed for Arabs in Yesha). But "none of these suggestions were acceptable to Konrad Henlein, head of the Sudeten German Party for the simple reason that he wanted no concessions within Czechoslovakia...his real desire was to destroy the Czechoslovak state." Here is a precise description of the position and rejectionist behavior of all the Arab states to an Israeli state, even the possibility of a Jewish state, no matter how small since 1920, from Amin al Husseini to the PLO, Fatah and Hamas today. It's like listening to a tape: they don't want concessions; their real desire is to destroy the Jewish state while western diplomats minimize or back page this ugly fact, the pre-selected outcome of the process. As in 1937-8, the pressure on the victim to submit is relentless, the 'guarantees' increasingly strained and absurd; the professions of allies that they cannot do more to help are precisely the same: false and outcome-based, the outcome being the disintegration of the victim.

But concessions continue to be offered, then and now, under pressure of the great power "friend" of the beleaguered nation in question. Months before Hitler demanded self-rule for the Germans in the Sudetenland, Neville Chamberlain, Lords Halifax and Lothian among others were privately discussing, inadvertently 'leaking' and eventually publicly stating in parliament (March 1938) that the Czechs should cede their entire mountainous region to Germany outright. This demand for compromise was clearly a recipe for dismemberment and ruin because the Czech fortifications were built into the region. The Sudeten Mountains then, the mountains of Judea and Samaria today; a historian asks: how could Czechoslovakia have its peace or even its existence guaranteed by France, as the British claimed it could, after surrendering its key defensive positions when according to the British it could not be guaranteed by France, Russia, and England with these defenses intact because Britain was overextended? As the London Times asserted February 20, even its five thousand troops remaining near Basra may be "significantly drawn down" by late 2008. At the same time, British officers are training PLO Force 17 in Gaza under the eyes of the UN. For this they have time and personnel as they did to train, equip and lead the Arab legion during the 1940s. The writing again is on the wall.

How will the United States, even with the best will in the world guarantee and maintain the existence of Israel minus Judea and Samaria when it claims that peace will never come so long as Israel retains its mountainous heartland and maintains full autonomy for its own people and armed forces? The entire process is one of terrorizing the target state to make suicidal concessions just as was done in 1938.

Another link between those times and ours is the disjunction between the upper diplomatic echelons of western governments and their military, parliaments and people. The purpose of the so-called negotiations with the Czechs (as now with successive Israeli regimes) is to exert pressure to surrender at any cost. The importance of "consultation before partition," Chamberlain said, was that "it could be represented as the choice of the Czechoslovak government ," as the expulsion of Gush Katif was sold as the "choice" of a supposedly representative and "democratic" Israel and the "rightwing nationalist" Ariel Sharon. Blackmail in the form of negotiations "would have a more favorable reception from the British public" then as it may from the American public today. Above all, Chamberlain added negotiations and eventual Czech agreement, like a handshake on the White House lawn "would dispose of any idea that we were ourselves carving up Czechoslovak territory." And so it is with administrations in Washington since that of Jimmy Carter [emphasis added].

Given the orchestrated UN uproar against Israel, meant to legitimize Hamas and cover Hizbollah's activities in Lebanon, it is clear that Mr. Carter's book, its title and the timing of its release were not an isolated exercise in individual bias. The resignations from his institute at Emory University are apt but come very late in the day. And as to Russia, the major supplier of Iran's nuclear and missile program and former backer of Egypt, Syria and the PLO: why did American and England let them into the UN at all when the world body was created "to foster democracy?" Because Russia shares and serves, as they have since 1917, various global interests of the Anglo-American elite, mainly the drive toward a regionalized world system that uses constant wars of attrition or "terror" to impose security measures on their own populations.

The gap between the agenda and methods of the diplomatic top tier, western parliaments and general electorates was strong then as now. When six months of betrayals, pressure on the French, and green lights to Hitler had wrung acquiescence from Paris and crippling concessions from the Czechs, Chamberlain found that he had created a monster. At a meeting in Godesborg on September 22, 1938, having repeatedly been assured of and received British diplomatic help Hitler was in a fury, demanding the whole pie immediately without impressive treaties. For everyone but Chamberlain and his clique and the top French diplomatic group it was a deal-breaker; the English and French Cabinets rejected the entire partition plan; the Czechs formed a new Cabinet that rejected it; the Russians served notice that if German forces moved they would invade East Prussia and protect the Czechs. But Chamberlain would not let go of his grand design. With the help of the media his group created a war scare, a terror war in Britain based on grossly exaggerated descriptions of German military might. Having previously ordered the Czechs not to mobilize their forces (shades of summer 2006) they now ordered that they do so. Pronouncements of Germany's military omnipotence filled the news. Through dominance of the media, a small clique can impose its agenda and views on a nation, via hysteria and manufactured despair when they feel it useful.

If Mahmoud Abbas announced tomorrow that he was going to take all of Israel from Eilat to Lebanon and Jerusalem to Tel Aviv would it create as great revulsion and stir? Would Congress, let along the EU or Russia formerly repudiate Oslo and the Road Map? No; the State Department would not even need to order Olmert to mobilize the IDF (for show) and to flood the complicit media with stories about dirty bombs exploding in American cities in order to secure Israel's unilateral surrender, termed "disengagement."

One last parallel to emphasize: just as the Czech armed forces' quantity were on par with those of Germany in fall 1938 (the British government knew this via its military attaches on the continent) and the quality of Czech forces far superior, so is the quality of Israel's armed forces today still far superior to those of its neighbors. The vulnerability of the Germans then was as evident as the weakness of Fatah and Israel's Arab neighbors now. So grave was the German position that the German Chief of Staff and other top officials were prepared to assassinate Hitler on September 28, 1938 if and when he gave the order to invade the Czechs; Arafat, too, in 1982 and afterward, and now Abbas have been and are saved by America and by Israeli regimes. Without its mountain barrier, Jewish settlements, and with EU, UN and NATO troops ready for Judea, Samaria and Gaza military advantages will be gravely compromised as happened to the Czechs without the Sudetenland. And with all governments and major media claiming that "the cycle of violence" will rise without Israeli concessions (that invite attacks by Hamas and Hizbollah on the "apartheid" state and suppress Israeli response), the military advantages of the victim, as great as those in 1938 can be neutered. Milner's words that Palestine "must never become a Jewish state" will be fulfilled.

British diplomats had no problem having Americans rebuild the continent their policies had led to ruin; Anglo-American and EU diplomats would have no problem letting Americans rebuild Israel after a similar process of "consultation before partition." It's good for business and demonstrates authority. Mesopotamia may not be the only killing field in the Middle East unless a sovereign Israel finds and rights itself.

History does repeat; but with awareness of the pattern the game need not again be played till the checkmate: holocaust and a huge spike in global terror.

Professor Eugene Narrett teaches writing and Literature at Boston University. He is the author of hundreds of articles, columns and reviews on politics, American culture and the arts. He is completing a study on Romanticism and the longterm decline of Western Culture. He writes often on subjects relating to Israel and Judaism and is a weekly columnist for the MetroWest Daily News in Framingham, Massachusetts. Contact him at culturtalk@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, March 27, 2007.

Repeat it long enough and it will catch on: "Death Certificate was issued to the Palestinian State west of the Jordan River...the paradigm of the two-state solution is DEAD and has been removed from the negotiations table in Israel as well as the international policies. Other solutions for the Palestinian Arabs must be found, such as the "Live and Live" Solution, two State Solution In East Jordan."

This article is called "Worrisome Regional Trends" and it was written by Rufi Buchnik March 22, 2007 and it appeared in OMedia
(http://www.omedia.org/Show_Article.asp?DynamicContentID=2176&MenuID= 726&ThreadID=1014017)

The revived Saudi Initiative is another token of Saudi Arabia's reinvigorated position. America's status in the region has declined. The Saudis are filling the void and making the most of it

Like a phoenix, a Saudi peace plan that has received the Arab League stamp of approval (Beirut 2002) has returned to the center stage of Middle East diplomacy against a backdrop of regional and international activism presaging a move to corner Israel and paints it in world public opinion as a chronic opponent to peace.

Related Articles

Saudi Arabia -- The Quest for Seniority Saudi-Iranian Contacts to Resolve the Crisis in Lebanon Iran and Saudi Arabia: An Islamic Cold War Saudi Arabia Watching Iran Through Gunsights

Saudi Arabia's new status as a regional power taking the initiative and leading processes in the Arab world continues to gather momentum. This trend is expected to peak at the end of March at an Arab summit meeting in the Saudi capital of Riyadh, where a full turnout expected. Saudi King Abdallah had good reason to leave his mark on the sensitive issues on the Arab and Islamic agenda and solidify Saudi Arabia's senior position, at least among the Sunni Arab states.

The Saudis are Leading and the Europeans are Being Led by the Nose

In a joint press conference held in Riyadh (March 14), Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal and his colleague Javier Solana, foreign policy coordinator of the European Union, offered a preview of Saudi Arabia's intentions regarding the Middle East's major issues. It also represented a form of European confirmation bordering on self-abasement for the shift in the balance of forces in the region.

At the press conference the Saudi Minister contended Israel had rejected UN Resolution 242, the Madrid Conference and the Arab Peace Plan, saying Israel had imposed conditions on each and every one of these initiatives. He recommended Israel first embrace the proposal and then discuss it. In his opinion, imposing conditions prior to negotiations or deliberations is a ludicrous way to conduct business.

Meanwhile the Saudi Minister praised the European Union's stance on the Mecca Agreement between Fatah and Hamas. Saudi Arabia hopes the European position is translated into support and assistance for the Palestinian unity government with a view towards "alleviating the humanitarian suffering of the Palestinian people and promoting peace in the region."

In a reference that was clearly lip service towards the anti-American position on the nuclear issue, the Minister expressed his hope the European Union would stay on course in guaranteeing the rights of nations to obtain nuclear energy for peaceful purposes according to the yardstick set by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Saudi Arabia emphasized the importance of having all countries in the region including Israel adopt these principles (an allusion to the Arab demand to compel Israel to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty). Regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, the Saudi Foreign Minister said his kingdom believes in striving for normalization with the Iranians without applying pressure on the country. He maintains it is important to continue deliberations on the subject without the sense the Iranians have a gun to their head. Negotiations in a relaxed atmosphere may be hard to achieve, he explained, but negotiations in an atmosphere of conflict are almost impossible.

According to the Saudis, threats to use force in Lebanon would not produce results. Meanwhile he called on the rival parties in Lebanon to exercise logic and give national interests top priority, circuitously proposing to host a meeting between the Lebanese parties provided the meeting would take place for the purposes of reconciliation, welfare and development.

Solana announced the European decision to involve four Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, in the next session of the international Quartet, which will focus on the Middle Eastern peace process. The involvement of these countries in the discussions is intended to facilitate a better understanding of regional problems in an attempt to find directions that would lead to appropriate solutions. In his opinion "the Middle East also constitutes part of the European milieu and therefore the aspiration for peace and regional development is in the European Union's interest." Solana praised the stabilizing role played by the Saudi monarchy in the Middle East, saying, "Every day we are informed of initiatives and proposals." In a very illuminating comment the European minister noted, "We have never disappointed the Palestinian people; during 2005 we contributed money and in 2006 we contributed even more to the Palestinian Authority." The European Union wants to see "the right people in the right positions" in the new Palestinian government.

The US' Eroding Status

The above joins growing indications the weakening international dam against the Hamas Government is about to burst, which obligates Israel to engage in more dynamic strategic thinking. Regional forces are vigorously trying to fill the political vacuum the United States is creating given its weakness and reluctance to take charge of processes pertaining to the Israeli-Arab conflict as it has done in the past.

The EU and Russia are disgruntled by Washington's strong reservations regarding any measure that would connote recognition for the new Palestinian government. This comes on top of a "suggestion" transmitted to the Government of Israel to refrain from any discussions with Bashar Assad's regime in Damascus. All this could reflect a tendency towards "reevaluation" in the Bush administration regarding the energies that should be invested in preserving America's status as an active broker in such a complex and tense region.

The tendency towards change in the American approach reflects the erosion of Washington's influence over the Middle East as a result of the clear failure of the agenda dictated by neoconservative circles that has led to the present chaotic situation in Iraq and has America bogged deep in the mud. What has happened in practice is diametrically opposed to the vision of those who shaped the conservative policy line. Instead of a form of American hegemony we are witnessing the reinforcement of Iran's regional status, the exacerbation of conflict within the Islamic world and Hamas' bolstered status among most Palestinians. Israel's lack of success in toppling Hezbollah in South Lebanon added another level to the collapse of the forceful approach underpinning America's Middle East strategy.

The fact that President Bush's Middle East Policy is encountering growing domestic opposition in recent months is reflected in the United States' diminished ability to present an effective deterrent to further challenges in the region on the order of the Iranian nuclear threat. Thus Washington is likely to confront a new regional reality of wallowing in the Iraqi muck from a military and strategic perspective on one hand, while its status as an honest broker on the Israeli-Arab issue has been greatly eroded on the other hand.

With this in mind a pessimistic outlook is taking shape among intelligence analysts in the US and Israel regarding the regional repercussions of a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq (which the Democrats are pushing for). Some are describing this as a "nightmare scenario" whose primary impact would be on the stability of moderate Arab regimes. Such an extreme scenario where America is pushed aside and yields its traditional place to regional players motivated by short-term interests constitutes a warning sign. This is already spurring senior officials in Washington, such as Vice President Cheney, to examine directions that stand to produce a significant turnaround in processes inimical to American interests in the Middle East.

Benefiting from the Regional Power Vacuum

Given America's weakened image the Saudi monarchy senses an opportunity in the Middle East, perhaps out of duress, to assume an active role as a regional force in order to shore up the status quo and play a stabilizing role, as well as to solidify the position of the pro-Saudi states in the event of a deterioration in regional security.

Riyadh's major concern, aside from the Iranian nuclear threat, is the formation of a alliance between Tehran and the Shiite government in Iraq that would deliver a fatal blow to those forces in Iraq which enjoy Saudi support. The monarchy sees a general civil war in Iraq following an American pullout as the most likely scenario and under such circumstances Iran would not stand idly by. American experts versed in the intricacies of the Saudi Court in Riyadh also point to a major bellwether in the form of a Saudi project to establish a sophisticated security fence along the border with Iraq as signaling advance preparation in the event the deterioration scenario materializes and as a concrete example of the palpable dangers Saudi Arabia anticipates in terms of chaos filtering down from the Iraqi theater into its own territory.

The complexity of the problems surrounding the Arab world and the explosiveness of each of every one of them in the absence of the formerly assertive American diplomacy, creates a moment of opportunity a sort of "ball waiting to be slammed" for Saudi King Abdallah. His firm measures in the Palestinian arena, his involvement in the back alleys of the internal Lebanese process as well as the upgrading of communications channels with both the Russian and Iranian presidents and recently the talks with the European Union create the optimal background for the kingdom on the eve of the Arab League leaders summit (March 28th and 29th).

The American weakness alongside the erosion of Israel's deterrent image given the impression of IDF failure in the second Lebanon war can serve as an unflagging catalyst from the Saudi perspective for reviving the Arab initiative for a general Middle East peace. In the present circumstances, understandings may have already been reached between the Saudis and international bodies that this initiative is indeed a fitting and proper framework for ending the Israeli-Arab conflict. The tidings that emerge from the Riyadh conference center at the close of the month will confer renewed sanction to the Arab peace plan, and may even include the exact wording including the demand that Israel implement the refugees' "right of return."

Israel should pay careful attention to the remarks by the Saudi Foreign Minister on this issue: "Israel must first accept the initiative before discussing its contents with the Arab world." This deliberately ignores Israel's familiar reservations regarding the contours of the program. Furthermore the open intransigence on the issue of the "right of return" displayed by pragmatic Arab states, including Egypt (which signed a peace agreement with Israel), should set off a warning light in Israel.

Hopes for an Arab or European initiative regarding a solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict are still contingent on Washington's say, at least as long as President Bush is in the White House. Diplomatic sources in the US are still entertaining hopes the current administration will soon sober up, both in terms of dealing with those who are generating chaos in Iraq and adopting a firmer policy on the Iranian nuclear issue. If a renewed American resolve materializes it would mark America's return to center stage in our region, with all that entails.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Aleksandra Fliegler, March 27, 2007.

The Almagor Terrorist Victims Association has published a report on the results of Israel's release of imprisoned terrorists in prisoner exchanges. The 30 attacks perpetrated in recent years by terrorists freed in prisoner exchanges or otherwise killed no fewer than 177 innocent citizens, mostly Israeli Jews. Many were also seriously wounded.

The government of Israel is finalizing a deal to release 1400 of terrorist murderers into the heartland of Israel in exchange for IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.

The last prisoner deal of similar proportions was the J'ibril exchange in 1987 involving 1,005 terrorists released into Yehudah, Shomron and Aza. Within 6 months the first Intifada (uprising) began, which then led to the infamous Oslo accords.

The result: over 1,600 Jews murdered and 8,000 maimed since Oslo was signed, over 8,000 Jews expelled from Gaza and the Jewish land turned over to terrorists which continue shelling Israel with Katiusha rockets to this day.

Faced with this reality, the burden of a mass terrorist release will be borne by the Rapid Response Teams of these communities. The volunteer teams will need to increase their numbers and will need more protective equipment since IDF only supplies them with firearms.


Since 1988, Mishmeret Yesha www.kadam.org.il, in conjunction with IDF, trains the civilian Rapid Response Teams to defend Jewish homes from Arab attacks in Israel's frontier communities. More information can be found at http://www.kadam.org.il

Recently Mishmeret Yesha supplied several dozen bulletproof vests to the front line in Lebanon. A member of the Likud Central Committee, just out of his reserve IDF duty, an infantry veteran, Mr. Danziger will be visiting the Bay Area with a fresh analysis of Israel's current state of affairs.

Please join us for a first-hand account from a respected and widely experienced soldier in Israel's daily battle for survival. For mid-April event information, contact Aleksandra Fliegler at thelady@bayarea.net or at 650-992-0512

Contact Aleksandra Fliegler by email at thelady@bayarea.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 27, 2007.


Although the government of the P.A. is dependent upon foreign donations, and although it neglects its people and its employees, it has spent millions of dollars of donations from Arab countries on upgrading its broadcasting and web site, in competition with Fatah's outlets. It considers propaganda of paramount importance. Its propaganda also is anti-US and anti-Israel. It likens the US to Genghis Kahn's Golden Horde (IMRA, 2/28). Fatah is anti-US and anti-Israel, too. Donating to the P.A. is far from humanitarian.


Syria is not allowed, under the terms of its truce with Israel, to station heavily armed forces on its portion of the Golan. However, it is building or moving infrastructure near the border to be in position for a war. It has moved fuel depots there. It has built potential weapons depots and bases there. This was not observed by the UN Disengagement Observer Force, invoked by the truce (IMRA, 3/1).

The UNO sees no evil and hears no evil, but evil is all around it and within it.


Pres. Bush is reluctant to accuse the government of Iran of complicity in the Iranian war on the US in Iraq. He allows that this Iranian effort may be an operation not under control of the top leadership.

Dan Diker, for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, laid out a case that this effort is sponsored by Iran's top leadership. He cited Israel's experience with Iranian proxies as among the pieces of evidence. Iran's top leadership set up the Qods Force as a loyal department dedicated to warfare to advance the Islamist revolution. It enjoys resource that could come only from top government sponsorship. It controls some proxies of Iran, such as Hizbullah. The US had better wake up to the strong, concerted effort by Iran to export its revolution (IMRA, 3/1).

This means that the US needs not just to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons but also to eliminate its clerical regime. The US needs a strategy for defeating jihad, not just for defending against it here and there. Otherwise, jihadists will just rise up, again. This is world war. We should not be hosting Muslim propagandists in our universities.


People have universal equal rights but not sameness of cultural concepts. Westerners perceive some of the differences in self-contradictory ways. On the one hand, they attribute the different ways of thinking of Western males and females largely to upbringing, and they are aware of the extreme reluctance of Chinese and to admit having made a mistake and of the Japanese to say "no." On the other hand, they assume that excuses by the Arabs and other Muslims are genuine and not a refusal to have made mistakes. They assume that since Westerners make agreements to resolve problems, the Muslims do, too. Actually, Muslim doctrine is to make agreements with Westerners in order the better eventually to conquer the infidels.

Self-deception is common but different. One type is wishful thinking. Westerners harp on making peace, deluding themselves that fanatical jihadists can be persuaded to cease their crusade just when they are gearing up and are looking forward to consolidating the Mid-East and dominating Europe and Russia.

Self-contradiction is common, but it is more frequent and common among the Muslim Arabs. Their intellectuals accept all arguments in behalf of jihad, regardless of lack of evidence for them, a plethora of evidence against them, poor logic in behalf of them, and their self-contradiction. Arab polemicists may contradict themselves in the same paragraph. Most Western journalists and intellectuals, however, are reluctant or unable to point out those self-contradictions.

The Muslim Arabs hold obviously self-contradictory ideas simultaneously in a way that puzzles me. An example is the P.A. curriculum about Israel. P.A. maps don't mention Israel, but show it as part of Palestine. Arab schoolchildren are not taught that Israel exists. On the other hand, Israeli cities are described as "Israeli occupied." How can they be occupied by a country that doesn't exist? A rational way to reconcile that self-contradiction, though it would be wrong factually, is to show Israel on the map and assert a claim to it. But the Arabs have no legitimate claim to it and a poor claim to Judea-Samaria and Gaza. That the West presses the Arab claim to the Territories is not based on international law, historical justice, etc., but on appeasement of the Arabs and hatred of Jews. Westerners have their ways of being devious.

The State Dept. and the Left contend that if Israel conceded the Territories, the Muslims would make peace. Aside from thereby ignoring the Muslim imperative of jihad, Westerners ignore the P.A. curriculum and the other, abundant evidence that the Arabs wouldn't stop with the Territories, but that their real goal is to conquer Israel, the Territories being a key step along the way. Why don't the major media expose this? Antisemitic prejudice blinds the supposedly logical Western mind.

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@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 27, 2007.

Below and attached is my summary of Khaled abu-Toameh's presentation at San Jose State University. On March 21, 2007, Khaled abu-Toameh spoke at the San Jose State University on the topic of what is happening in the Palestinian territories now (now = after the Mecca Accords and the new "unity government"). The following is a brief summary of his comments.

Three most important statements

I'd rather be a 2nd class citizen in Israel than a first class citizen in Beirut or Ramallah.

Israel is the only free democracy in the Middle East, the only state with free media.

Arabs world-wide admire and want Israeli-style democratic system

About Himself

His father is an Israeli Arab Muslim. His mother is a Palestinian Arab Muslim. He was born in Qalqilyah (an Arab village in the Palestinian Authority part of the West Bank). He has a BA in English Lit from the Hebrew University (Jerusalem).

He started his journalism career with the PLO, but left because there was no freedom of thought, freedom of speech in the PLO. So he got a job with the Israeli and later international media. He is now a producer for NBC News, BBC, and other news outlets. He also writes in Hebrew for Israeli newspapers. He has written for the Jerusalem Post (in English) for more than 5 years and has never experienced any censorship.

Criticism of the Arab self-image

It is an incredible irony that an Arab can express himself freely only in Israel.

Thus the Arab press is merely a mouthpiece for the government.

Problematic is the fact that self-criticism is almost non-existent. Any failure must be either hidden, or blamed on the Jews/Israel/Zionism/occupation.

Criticism of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas:

In 2006, more Palestinians were killed by Palestinians than by Israelis...but human rights groups are silent.

Not just in Gaza, but in the West Bank as well, there is no rule of law, no governance, no civil institutions. Armed gangs rule. Tribes and clans rule. And the problem is not just with leaders. Palestine is a Muslim state. If Hamas were to change, and accommodate the possibility of peace with Israel, Hamas' Muslim constituency would reject it.

The Palestinian people have become more and more radicalized over the past 13 years, since Oslo. Arafat took billions in western money, and then used it to educate his children into hatred of the west, terrorism against the West...and western leaders never demanded an accounting.

The core issue, the real heart of the problem is that the Muslim and Arab world refuses to acknowledge that a Jewish State has the right to exist. Thus, this is at its core a religious conflict.

Whatever 'peace process' there may have been after Oslo died on 9/29 2000 (the first day of the 2nd Intifada).

The Problem with Journalists

Journalists see the Palestinians as the good guys, because they are weak, 'occupied', 'oppressed', and Israel is strong. So Israel is de facto the oppressor, occupier, bad guy.

There is not one foreign journalist that will go in to Gaza (DML: incorrect. One just got kidnapped when he went in to Gaza a few weeks ago). They get their news about Gaza and Hamas from the stringers. But the stringers are Arab/Muslim/Palestinians who get their news from the same news sources that abu-Toameh left 26 years ago because they were censoring everything and producing fake news. So the western journalists become the conduits for Hamas propaganda.

Ha'aretz is in its essence a Palestinian newspaper. Some of its articles are translated, in toto, and published in Palestinian newspapers.


There is no solution. The conflict cannot be resolved. It can only be managed. Israel's strategy now can be only, how to manage the violence, keep it at levels that do not create an existential threat.


The concept embodied in Oslo (two states) was good. But the implementation was a disaster. Israel and the USA (i.e., Clinton) simply refused to deal with the reality that the PLO was a terrorist organization and not a political party. Terrorists in police uniforms are still terrorists. Arafat set up as his job #1 the control of the media so that his corruption, embezzlement, massive abuses of Palestinian human rights...all could be hidden from the western presses.

Foreign journalists in the West Bank did NOT want to go looking for problems, or things to criticize. Foreign editors did not want to hear about PA corruption etc...they only wanted to hear about "exile" and "occupation" and "oppression" and suffering of Palestinians.

Arafat incited his people endlessly after Oslo, and he used billions in foreign money to do so, and to educate to incitement, and to preach from the mosques to blame all the miseries of the Palestinian people on Israel and the West and the Jews and the infidels.

Despite the agreements at Oslo, there was never rule of law, and the Palestinians were more afraid of the PA police than of the IDF.

Arafat wanted to divert anger from his misdeeds and redirect it to Israel. So he made up the idea that Israel wanted to destroy el-Aqsa, and launched the 2nd Intifada with the fiction that el-Aqsa was in danger. People in the PA were pressing to ask hard questions, to demand Arafat's answers, so to divert them, he blamed everything on Baraq.


Abbas came to power in 2005 on the platform of ending financial corruption, bringing freedom and democracy, and dismantling the militias, and negotiating peace with Israel. Didn't work.


Hamas came to power in 2006 on the same platform...didn't work. Hamas just as corrupt, no transparency, but at least honest that they do not want peace, they want to destroy Israel.

The West tried to help the PLO and Abbas retain power. Didn't work. The Mecca accords put the last nails in that coffin. Abbas simply decided: if we can't beat them, then we will join them. So now Abbas and PLO are part of Hamas. They need money; so they put forth to the West the complex and intentionally vague platform of a "unity government" which permits the Muslims to interpret that there is no peace, no compromise, no recognition for Israel...but permits the West to read between the lines that "recognition is implied" and "treaties will be recognized".

The message from Abdullah at Mecca was: join forces, pretend to recognize Israel...but Hamas said no: we must stay honest and loyal to our commitments...destroy Israel.

He cannot understand why the international community still rushes to embrace Hamas, give legitimacy to intended genocide, lend support to international Islamofascist terrorism. Why does West accept and welcome this radical extremism?


1. How do we untangle this mess? Israel has made so many concessions (Oslo, letting the PLO become the PA, Gaza, offer to give more territory in west bank, even divide Jerusalem) that some Arab leaders will surely see the light and recognize that Israel wants peace. How can we help them see the light?

Easy: withhold money, and demand change in return for aid (free media, end corruption, disarm militias)

2. What is the mood in the populace?

Most want peace but too much incendiary input from el-Jazeera and from PLO/PA hate speech and hate preach and hate teach.

3. What is the relationship between the Muslim brotherhood and Hamas?

Hamas is an offshoot of the MB but has now moved toward Iran and Syria.

4. Why is there no dialogue with Islamic fundamentalists?

Because there can be no dialogue with fundamentalists. What will we dialogue about? We should be dialoguing with the moderates, and protecting them, and helping to develop them.

5. Are you in danger?

Yes. But I just keep telling the truth. However, ironic that CNN will not come to me for any analysis of the situation. They prefer to go to Hanan Ashrawi.

6. Are the settlements a barrier to peace?

No. Not at all. Just look: before there were settlements (i.e., pre' 1967) there was no peace. During the settlement period there was little or no terrorism. Now that Gaza is without settlements there is no peace. There is no causal relationship between settlements and peace. The barrier to peace is that there is no peace partner in the PA/PLO.

7. What about the rivalry between Palestinian factions?

They kill each other. They are brutal and ruthless. They kill each other's children. They murder each other's children in the streets. They practice gang rape and murder in streets and in mosques. In the last 3 months, 145 people have died due to rivalry violence. But the UN is silent about this murder of children.

8. Why is Israel always to blame?

It is time to stop the blaming. Both Jews and Palestinians are victims. The "wall" harms both sides; but the media is interested only in Palestinian suffering. Look at Palestinian education. It is hate education inculcating hate toward Israel, hate toward "kufar", and love for martyrdom and jihad. This comes from the schools and the mosques and government and media in the PA.

9. What happened to all the billions of $$?

$1,600,000,000 went to Gaza from unknown sources in 2006. Where did it go?

$$6,500,000,000 went to the PA between 1993 and 2001. Where did it go? It went to Suha Arafat, to Yassir, to terrorists, corruption, embezzlement.

10. What about the discrimination towards Israeli Arabs?

There is discrimination. Lack of funding for Arab schools and communities. And Israeli Arabs are upset with Israel. The Oslo accords destroyed the relationship between the Israeli Jews and the Israeli Arabs. Israel should embrace Israeli Arabs. Only 0.8% of Arabs hold jobs in the public sector. There are no industrial zones in Arab sectors. There is need for affirmative action, for the Israeli government to say that there is a problem and do something about it.

I'd rather be a 2nd class citizen in Israel than a first class citizen in Beirut or Ramallah.

11. What about the Iraq War; did it help or harm the peace process?

There is no peace process. There is simply no intention on the Arab side to make peace with Israel. A very conservative estimate has it that ONLY 10% of Palestinians are radical. Sounds small. But there are 3,000,000 Palestinians in Israel. So that means that there is an army of 300,000 who are bent on violence against Israel.

12. What about Iran? Iran is the greatest threat. Then Syria. They are the mentors of Hezbollah and are intent on destabilizing Lebanon, then the PA, then Jordan. Iran poses a real danger to other Arab countries, and other Muslim countries, not just to Israel. Akhmedi-Nejjad is another modern Hitler. The problem is that if Israel attacks Iran, he will be more popular than ever in the Muslim world, therefore, Israel and the USA should let the Arabs fight him... before he destabilizes Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

There is much pressure on Akhmedi-Nejjad inside his own country to bring him down and end the mullocracy.

13. Where are Saddam's WMDs?

Khaled does not know. But there should not have been a war. There should have been a summit. The USA now should work toward the creation of a peace keeping force with soldiers from Egypt, Jordan, North African Arab countries, the Gulf States, and this peace force could then replace the USA and use the peace force soldiers to kill the insurgents.

14. What about the Arab refugees?

The refugees are a source of the problem. The USA and Japan and the rest of the world should force the Arab countries to pay compensation and resettlement. The purpose of UNRWA is to keep the refugees as refugees...to maintain the problem.

Look at the numbers. Jordan has 2,000,000 refugees. Syria has 500,000. Lebanon has 500,000. Lebanon has 72 laws prohibiting Palestinians from working, from traveling, from getting Lebanese passports, for buying land.

The refugee camps in the West Bank (i.e., under Israeli control) are much better than those in Gaza (under Hamas) or Jordan or Syria or Lebanon.

Much of the Arab world hates the Palestinians because of their support for Saddam. Kuwait and Qatar exiled 450,000 Palestinians due to their support for Saddam.

It is the Arab states that should solve the refugee problem, not Israel. Refugee camps in Israel look like normal villages. There is no squalor, no mud huts, no tents.

15. What about the unity government?

There is nothing to talk about as long as this government does not renounce terrorism, accept Israel's right to exist, stop incitement, and honor previous agreements. Abbas is now part of Hamas, and that is good for Hamas because Abbas (the Moderate) can extort money from West and especially from the USA.

The PLO has still not come to terms with its defeat by Hamas. The PLO must reform, call new elections, and then bring down Hamas.

Suicide bombings are attempted almost daily. The IDF stops most of them. Sharon's unilateral action looked like weakness to Palestinians, looked like retreat, helped bring Hamas to power.

Qassams continue daily under the "unity government"...there is no government. There is only Hamas, hell-bent on destroying Israel.

16. Is there a secret policy for the IDF to intentionally shoot Arab children?

No. Arab children and other civilians die in the fighting because the terrorists use them as human shields.

17. What about the UN?

The UN does much that is very wrong toward Israel. It ignores the real problems in Darfur, the real genocides, the real violations of human rights, and focuses on Israel.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Rachel Saperstein, March 27, 2007.

I've had to make some order (seder) in my caravilla, my Amutah [NPO] and into the enterprises that Operation Dignity has been aiding: The Orange Gallery, Bnei Menashe Motif, and Katifnik [Mr. Fix-It].

The caravilla, my plywood home, has been the easiest. We had moved into the caravilla a year ago, right before Pessach. Wonderful teenaged girls from a nearby high school had come to unpack and put our things away. For one year I have been searching for and re-buying items that are stored "somewhere".

This year I organized the closets and found six packages of the same painkiller and enough band-aids for a small war. I found single socks, hoping the other one would show up. I found shirts with frayed collars and stains. Cans of vegetables bought in Neve Dekalim added to the pile that made its way to the dark green dumpster across the street.

Why one cannot make order (seder) during the rest of the year is a question only a Jewish woman can answer. Why bother when you can wait for the pre-Pessach cleanup.

Order has been reached until the next time. I'll probably buy another box of painkillers when the doctor writes the next prescription because I will have forgotten about the other six boxes lying neatly "somewhere".

I have had to put order into my enterprises. Operation Dignity has been aiding the running of three projects and it was more than the NPO could handle. Our opening date of the Orange Gallery, March 19, came and went without an opening. We had spent so much on clearing the muddy lake and installing a brick patio that we had no funds left for the insurance needs. Thefts are common in the Nitzan refugee camp and we could hardly have opened without fire, theft and personal accident insurance. The printing needs and office equipment overwhelmed us so we decided to postpone the opening until we could find financial help.

The Gallery has been successful in helping the artists and artisans make a living, but with the small percentage we take from each work sold we are unable to sustain ourselves. We clearly need patrons to keep us going.

We turned to JobKatif who have agreed to back us. So once again we have an opening date, during the intermediate days of Pessach, Thursday, April 5. At 1:15pm. We will affix the mezuzah on each of our structures, invite our rabbis to say words of Torah, and greet the guests whom we hope will arrive for this wonderful opening.

This is your invitation to be with us for the opening of the Orange Gallery.

Order in ones personal life means celebration in its time. We held a Kiddush in the home of Moshe's brother and sister-in-law in honor of Moshe's mother's 90th birthday. Her friends, young and old, from her Har Nof Jerusalem neighborhood came with fondness for this feisty, inspiring woman, Shoshana (Rose) Saperstein. Her life has been devoted to her family and to chessed and we have tried to walk in her footsteps. A family picnic with her sons and daughters-in-law, seven grandchildren and thirty-plus great grandchildren will be held during Pessach in Har Nof.

And to the Pessach seder itself... We are looking forward to Tamar and Oshri and the girls joining us. I have prepared small gifts for the girls. My sister-in-law calls it reinforcement; once we called it bribery. We hope they will participate. We've bought them children's Haggadot, Afikoman candy boxes, and hair ornaments. I haven't found the '10 plagues' gift packages that my friend Mara brought so many years ago, so will make up games as we go along. All ideas for getting grandchildren to participate in the Seder are appreciated.

May I wish you all a happy and kosher Pessach. For those of you outside Israel, may you be privileged to live in the land of Israel. For those who live here, may we be privileged to live in a land of peace.


Send your checks earmarked for OPERATION DIGNITY to:

Central Fund for Israel
Rehov Hagoel 13
Efrat 90435


Central Fund for Israel
980 Sixth Avenue, Third Floor
New York, NY 10018

Rachel Saperstein and her husband, Moshe, were among the thousands of Jews kicked out of their homes in Gush Katif, in the Gaza strip, and forced into temporary quarters so dismal, their still-temporary paper-based trailers in Nitzan, seemed a step up. Contact them at ruchimo@.netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 27, 2007.

This is by Caroline Glick and it appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879180439&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). .

In an open act of war, Iran Friday kidnapped 15 British soldiers in the Persian Gulf. Iran's act of aggression occurred just as the British voted in favor of a UN Security Council resolution imposing increased sanctions against Teheran for its illicit nuclear weapons program.

Several theories have been raised to explain Iran's behavior. Some say that the Iranians acted against the British in the hope that Britain would respond by abandoning its alliance with the US and swiftly pulling its forces out of Iraq.

Another theory is that in kidnapping the sailors the Iranians are seeking to reenact their ploy from last summer. Then, Iran ordered its Lebanese proxy Hizbullah to kidnap IDF soldiers in order to divert the international community's attention away from Iran's nuclear program. As is the case with the British servicemen, so last summer's attack on the IDF took place as the Security Council was expected to convene and discuss sanctions against Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Yet another theory has it that Iran kidnapped the sailors to use as a bargaining chip to force the US military to release Iranian operatives who the US has arrested in Iraq in recent months. Whatever the case may be, it is absolutely clear that the Iranians intentionally fomented this international crisis with the expectation that their aggression would in some way be rewarded.

AGAINST THIS backdrop, and given the stakes involved, it could have been expected that the US and its allies would be concentrating their attention on how to weaken Iran and its terror proxies and curtail Iran's ability to acquire a nuclear arsenal. But, alas, the US is doing just the opposite.

The Iranians acted as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was en route to the region. Since Friday, Rice has shuttled between Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan, and is on her way to Saudi Arabia. She is not working to coordinate moves to check Iran's increasing bellicosity. Rather, Rice is laboring to empower Teheran's terrorist allies in Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and Fatah. This she does by promoting the so-called Arab peace plan, which demands that Israel agree to dangerous and strategically catastrophic concessions to the Palestinian terrorist government.

In behaving thus, Rice is walking in the well-worn footsteps of her predecessors. Indeed, it seems almost axiomatic that when the going gets tough for US administrations, administration officials get tough on Israel.

AFTER THE Republicans won control of the Congress in 1994, then president Bill Clinton was hard-pressed to advance his domestic agenda. And so Clinton -- who had almost no interest in foreign policy in his opening years of office -- turned his attention to Israel and the so-called peace process, in which Israel was expected to give land, arms and legitimacy to the PLO in exchange for terrorism.

Clinton's penchant for forcing Israeli concessions to the PLO in the name of peace became more pronounced as things became more difficult for him during his impeachment hearings in 1998. As the House of Representatives poised to vote on articles of impeachment, Clinton twisted then prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's arm until he signed the Wye Plantation memorandum, in which Israel pledged to transfer wide swathes of Judea and Samaria to Yasser Arafat's terrorist government.

Clinton forced Netanyahu's hand in spite of the fact that, by 1998, it was clear that Arafat was actively enabling Hamas and Islamic Jihad to carry out terror attacks against Israel and indoctrinating Palestinian society to wage jihad for Israel's destruction.

But negotiating with Netanyahu was inconvenient. Netanyahu refused to implement the Wye agreement in light of Arafat's support for terrorism and forced Clinton to acknowledge that Arafat was doing nothing to combat terror. Unhappy with this state of affairs, Clinton set out to overthrow Netanyahu's government.

IN AN ACT of unmitigated contempt for Israeli democracy and electoral laws, Clinton sent his own election advisers James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Robert Schrum to Israel to run Labor party leader Ehud Barak's campaign in the 1999 elections.

The culmination of Clinton's campaign was the failed Camp David summit in July 2000. There, and in subsequent desperate discussions with Arafat at Taba, Barak agreed to hand over the Temple Mount to Arafat in addition to Gaza, Judea, Samaria and a pile of money.

Israel paid dearly for Barak and Clinton's behavior. In the Palestinian jihad that followed Arafat's rejection of Barak and Clinton's plaintive offers, more than 1,000 Israelis were murdered -- more than 70 percent of whom were civilians. Israel's international standing fell to all-time lows as global anti-Semitism rose to levels unseen since the Holocaust.

America too, paid dearly for Clinton's behavior. Rather than pay attention to the burgeoning terror nexus which had placed the US directly in its crosshairs -- in 1993 at the World Trade Center; in 1996 at the Khobar Towers; in 1998 at the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; and in 2000 at the USS Cole -- Clinton remained scope-locked on the so-called peace process.

Rather than acknowledge the existence and threat of the global jihad to US national security, Clinton pressured the global jihad's primary victim -- Israel -- into transferring its heartland and capital to the godfather of modern terrorism.

But while Israel and America bled, Clinton himself paid no price for his behavior. Rather than be blamed for the war he contributed so richly to enabling, Clinton is upheld as a hero at best, or at worst a tragic figure who devoted his presidency to the cause of peace. Today, Rice's newfound mania for peacemaking comes when local conditions negate any possibility of peace. Just last month the Saudis promised the Palestinians a billion dollars and so paved the way for

the Mecca accord, where the Iranian-sponsored Fatah terror group surrendered to the Iranian-sponsored Hamas terror group. In so acting, the Saudis brought about the formation of a Palestinian government openly committed to the use of terrorism as a tool to ensure Israel's destruction.

International conditions also ensure that Rice's peacemaking will fail to make peace. Regionally, Iran ups the ante daily against the US-led coalition in Iraq. Domestically, the Democratic-controlled Congress works daily to prevent the US from fighting its enemies. Globally, states as far-flung as Russia, China and Venezuela make deals with terror governments to check US power.

The program that Rice has come to the region to advance does not even have the benefit of a peaceful facade. The Palestinians make clear every single day that they do not and will not accept Israel's right to exist in any borders, and that they will not work to combat terrorism against Israel. The Arab League, and its member states, for their part, have repeatedly announced that they will brook no change in their "peace" plan which, if implemented will bring about Israel's rapid destruction.

In behaving as she does, Rice, like Clinton before her, is aided by a politically weak and strategically incompetent Israeli government that is willing to sacrifice Israel's long-term security for the benefit of prime-time photo opportunities with bigwig American leaders and Arab potentates.

Sunday, the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government has announced that it is open to negotiating on the basis of the Arab plan. As one government official told The Jerusalem Post, Israel will "not dismiss" the plan.

THIS IS Israel's position in spite of the fact that the Arab plan calls for Israel to surrender east, north and south Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and the Golan Heights to Hamas and Syria and for Israel to permit four to five million hostile, foreign-born Arabs posing as Palestinian "refugees" to immigrate to its truncated territory. As the "peace" plan makes clear, all these suicidal Israeli moves must come before the Arab states will be willing to have "regular" (whatever that means) relations with the indefensible, overrun Jewish state.

Commenting on the government's position, the official explained, "We would not reject this out of hand."

It is not surprising that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are behaving in this manner. After all, these are the same leaders who brought about Israel's defeat in Lebanon in last summer's war at the hands of Iran's Hizbullah proxy army. Last summer, Olmert followed Livni's lead in rejecting military victory as an option. Heeding Livni's unwise, defeatist counsel, Olmert postponed the essential ground offensive in south Lebanon until it was too late to make a difference and instead opted for a negotiated cease-fire.

As is the case with the Arab "peace" plan, the cease-fire Israel enthusiastically acceded to last summer was strategically disastrous for the country. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 placed Israel on the same plane as the illegal Hizbullah terrorist organization; prevents Israel from taking steps to defend itself; does not require the safe return of IDF hostages Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser; enables Hizbullah to rearm and reassert its control over south Lebanon; and lets Hizbullah's state sponsors Syria and Iran completely off the hook for their central role in Hizbullah's illegal war against the Jewish state.

Recent history shows that the US and Israel will both pay heavily for the opportunism of our weak political leaders. It can only be hoped that the Israeli and American people have learned enough from our experiences to demand that our leaders stop their reckless behavior before the price of their cowardice and perfidy become unbearable.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, March 27, 2007.

While the Hamas goal of destroying Israel is well known, its aspiration for Islamic subjugation of the entire world is just as basic to Hamas dogma. Both aims appear in the Hamas Charter as God's irrepressible will, and both aims were reiterated this week by senior Hamas leader and former PA Foreign Minister Mahmoud Al-Zahar.

At a mass rally in memory of Hamas founder Ahmad Yassin, Al-Zahar said that the Quran promises the "liberation of all of Palestine," meaning the destruction of Israel. He went so far as to challenge the Islamic faith of those who deny this goal: "No one can deny it. One who denies it must check his faith and his Islam."

Regarding the Hamas religious goal of Islamic world domination, he said: "Islam will enter every house and will spread over the entire world."

Below is the translation of Al-Zahar's speech:

[Mahmoud] Al-Zahhar spoke at the mass rally held on the memorial day for Sheikh Ahmad Yassin...

Al-Zahhar emphasized that the Islamic Movement's [Hamas'] position concerning the problem of the liberation of Palestine is clear and known, and said: "We have two important foundations: One is Quranic and the other is prophetic. The Quranic: The divine promise made in the 'Al-Israa Sura' [Chapter 17] is that we will liberate the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, 'and we will enter it as we have entered it the first time.' [paraphrasing Sura 17 (The Night Journey), verse 7]. And the prophetic foundation is the message of the prophet Muhammad, that Islam will enter every house and will spread over the entire world."

And added: "Our position is the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine. This is the final and strategic solution for us. There is a Quranic message for us, that we will enter the Al-Aqsa mosque, and the entrance to the mosque means the entrance into all of Palestine. This is the message, no one can deny it. Anyone who denies it must check his faith and his Islam." [Al-Ayyam, March 25, 2007]

Itamar Marcus is director of PMW -- Palestinian Media Watch -- (http://www.pmw.org.il). PMW is based in Jerusalem. Barbara Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's North American representative.

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, March 27, 2007.

The Banned UN Speech: "Human Rights Nightmare" can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU The representative of UN Watch is slamming the representative of the U.N Council Of Human Rights.

Six decades ago in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, prominent world figures gathered on the banks of Lake Geneva to reaffirm the principles of human dignity that the Nazis stripped the world of. They created the Commission of Human Rights, now known as the "U.N Council Of Human Rights."

What has become of this noble dream?

The good-for-nothing do-nothing Council's response to any atrocity and violation of human rights around the world is silence, indifference, and it is criminal. The despots who run the U.N. Council of Human Rights could care less about human rights; they allow the criminals to go on with their crimes with impunity, but the fingers of the council are pointed at Israel at any and every opportunity: Their only job is to demonize the Israeli democracy, to delegitimized the Jewish State, and to scapegoat the Jewish people. Moreover, they seek to distort and prevent the very language and ideas of human rights. With their terrible lies and inversion, they turn the idea of human rights into a nightmare.

The question is: Why do we go on validating the criminal actions of the U.N.? Why do allow our hard earned dollars to pay the criminals who run the U.N.? The time has come to dismantle the U.N., or to end the United States membership in this most disgraceful, do nothing good for nothing [in]human council and the United Nation Organization -- the U.N.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 26, 2007.


If Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities (or perhaps even if the US does), Syria would fire rockets at Israel, some bearing chemical weapons. Iran's terrorist proxies would join the fray (Arutz-7, 2/27).

They are putting Israel in the position of having to follow the attack with a threat to counter with nuclear weapons, if Syria thought to attack non-conventionally.

This quandary shows the folly of letting enemy terrorist groups and countries get so far. It shows the follow of withdrawal without peace (as in Lebanon) and withdrawal from one's own patrimony (as in Gaza and northern Samaria). The withdrawal from Sinai, not integrally part of Egypt, facilitates smuggling into Gaza.


Everybody knows that the Prime Minister, Defense Minister, and Chief of Staff fumbled the Lebanon war. Under investigation for that as well as for corruption, Olmert pretends he didn't make a snap decision to go to war, but decided months earlier. We already reported that he contradicted that claim by having reduced the military budget before the war and did not prepare for the war.

The Knesset military chair also noted that before the war, Olmert reduced military training and reserve call-ups. If he secretly had planned war, those reductions would be criminal negligence, worse than a snap decision to go to war. Olmert's phony excuse provides an excuse for Hizbullah, by indicating that its kidnapping of Israeli soldiers was just a pretext for Olmert's allegedly prior decision to go to war, hence Hizbullah's precipitating action was not rash (Arutz-7, 3/?).

The limited war that Olmert waged failed in Israeli war games before Olmert chose it, anyway. The public long knew that he needed to call up the reserves, but he stuck with his failing plan so long that reservists couldn't prepare.

Olmert claims that he broke out into a full-scale ground assault, sustaining relatively higher casualties just hours before calling it off, in order to get a better UNO ceasefire resolution. But the Security Council already had passed its resolution unanimously. The Council would not review it in Israel's behalf. As for the terms of the resolution, it mandated no action against Iran and Syria even to barring their re-supply of Hizbullah, treated the illegal Hizbullah terrorists and aggressors on a par with UNO member Israel, treats the Hizbullah collaborator, Lebanese PM Siniora, as a positive factor, and urged more power for UNIFIL, which reported Israeli movements on its web site in time to warn Hizbullah, and which let Hizbullah rearm then and now (IMRA, 3/9 from Caroline Glick).

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@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Alex Grobman, March 26, 2007.

This comes from Democracy Project
(http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/003196.html). It was posted by Bruce Kesler.

Hillel Neuer, the executive director of UN Watch, spoke truth to the U.N. Human Rights Council last Friday, for which he was admonished for speaking the truth. How dare he was the reply. How dare we ignore the reply, and what it says so clearly about the U.N.?

A bit of Scottish sense, via Walter Scott, first:

One hour of life, crowded to the full with glorious action, and filled with noble risks, is worth whole years of those mean observances of paltry decorum, in which men steal through existence, like sluggish waters through a marsh, without either honor or observation.

Now for Mr. Neuer:

Mr. President,

Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Rn Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?

In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided?

Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.

One might say, in Harry Truman's words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.

But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.

It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements -- and there will be three more this session -- Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world -- millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries -- continue to go ignored.

So yes, this Council is doing something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights.

So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.

But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?

Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights -- Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard -- they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh's troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?

Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn't care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.

They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.

You ask: What has become of the founders' dream? With terrible lies, it is being turned into a nightmare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Reply by U.N. Human Rights Council President Luis Alfonso De Alba:

For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you'd kindly listen to me. I am sorry that I'm not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records.
Dr. Alex Grobman's most recent book is Nations United: How the UN Undermines Israel and the West. He is also co-author of "Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened?" (University of California Press, 2000) and author of "Battling for Souls: The Vaad Hatzala Rescue Committee in Post War Europe" [KTAV].
To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Nathan, March 26, 2007.

DEBKAfile Exclusive: The halt of Jewish immigration to Israel is one of two key Arab pre-conditions for engaging the Jewish state in peace talks

Our Arab sources reveal that the two conditions will be incorporated in the final resolutions approved by the Arab League summit in Riyadh on Thursday.

1. Israel must halt Jewish immigration so that the Israelis leaving the country or revoking their citizenship are not replaced by newcomers.

2. The international community must condemn Israel's High Court of Justice for authorizing targeted assassination of Palestinians in cases of security threats. Arab justice ministers will lobby international judicial bodies to elicit this condemnation.

Contact Dave Nathan at davenathan@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daniel Mandel, March 26, 2007.

America is reputed to have some moderate Arab allies of which Hosni Mubarak's Egypt is perhaps pre-eminent. It ought therefore to have concerned the Bush Administration and the State Department that Mubarak rebuffed a 24 March a request from the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to pressure Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir into dropping his objections to United Nations peacekeepers in Darfur. In point of fact, this act has brought no rebuke from Washington, but then Egyptian failure to assist efforts to end the mass killing in Sudan is not new. As I have previously noted, Egypt has a history of continually foiling international efforts to end the genocide being perpetrated there.

When one looks at the broad goals of American Middle East policy -- promoting democratic reform in the Middle East, fostering conditions to bring about an Arab-Israeli peace -- Egypt's record is no better than on Darfur. It is Egypt that that has turned a blind eye to the smuggling of weaponry and materiel to terrorists in Gaza from Egypt. It is Egypt that in May 2006 arrested hundreds of demonstrators supporting judges who had denounced the rigging of parliamentary elections. It was Mubarak who subsequently cancelled municipal elections.

The Bush Administration's reaction to the Mubarak regime's repression is an index of its evaporating will to work towards the attainment of its own declared goals in the Middle East. Whereas Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice commenced her stewardship of Foggy Bottom in January 2005 by cancelling a visit to Egypt to protest the arrest of leading human rights activist Ayman Nour (which helped to secure his brief release) her December 2006 visit, in contrast, was notable for her silence on democratic reform or Mr Nour's rotting in gaol. One therefore expects that Egypt's proposed referendum to give Mubarak new powers to more easily dissolve Parliament and suspend civil liberties will not meet with more than a whimper from Washington -- although that whimper has sufficed to attract a heated Egyptian reaction.

Contact Daniel Mandel at daniel.mandel@gmail.com. This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 26, 2007.
This was written by Anne Bayefsky. It appeared in National Review Online and is archived at

The United Nations' nourishment of terrorism (a concept it has yet to define) reached a new low last Friday. On March 23, 2007, the United Nations General Assembly's Sixth Committee -- its lead legal body comprised of all 192 member states -- recommended that observer status be granted to the Islamic Development Bank Group (IDB), an entity that has been directly involved in paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Back in August of 2001, Ahmad Muhammad Ali, president of the bank, was questioned by the publication Asharq Al-Awsat about payments to the Palestinian Authority for the sake of carrying out the intifada. Ali told the publication that "there was no delay in paying financial assistance to the families of Palestinian martyrs," assuring it, "We have started paying them soon after receiving the money."

An Arab Summit in Cairo in late October of 2000 created two funds, the Al-Quds Intifadah Fund and the Al-Aqsa Fund. According to Ali, the IDB is responsible "for the smooth functioning of the two funds." The final communiqué of the summit made no attempt to conceal the purpose of the funds: "the Al-Quds Intifadah Fund will have a capital of 200 million dollars to be allocated for disbursement to the families of Palestinian martyrs fallen in the Intifadah."

The creation of a fund dedicated to making suicide-bombing financially appealing was the brainchild of then Crown Prince, now King, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He announced the move at the Arab League Summit thus:

[W]e propose the establishment of a special trust under the name of 'The Jerusalem Intifada Fund' with a capital of 200 million US dollars. This amount will be allocated, to the families and the education of the children of the Palestinian martyrs who sacrificed their lives in the struggle.

(That "education" is one that will certainly include the glorification of the violent and racist goals of the children's parents.)

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) has reported on some of the details of the financial connections between the IDB and terrorism. According to a 2003 report:

Saudi funds which originate in the Jeddah based Islamic Development Bank (IDB) reach the Palestinian Authority Treasury Department via Account 98 of the Saudi Development Fund (SDF). All funds for Prince Salman Ibn Abd Al-Aziz's Popular Committee for Assisting the Palestinian Mujahideen go directly to the PLO, while Prince Nayef's funds from the Support Committee for the Al-Quds Intifada and Al-Aqsa Fund go to the Palestinian Authority.

In June of 2006, the foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the 56-member voting bloc that drives the majority "non-aligned" movement in the U.N., praised the contribution of the Islamic Bank in forwarding the OIC's hateful agenda. It adopted a resolution explaining its goals and the IDB's role in achieving them, "Commending the just and legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people...[and] Commend[ing] the efforts of the...Administrative Committee of the Al-Aqsa and Al-Quds funds and the Islamic Development Bank...with respect to the management of the Funds."

As recently as March 9, 2007, Arab foreign ministers concluded a meeting in Cairo and "decided to upgrade the ceiling of [the] Al-Aqsa fund and Al-Quds uprising by $300 million."

None of this made the slightest difference at the U.N.

Saudi Arabia, where the bank is headquartered, put forward the application of the IDB for observer status, announcing in accompanying documentation that the IDB works "to promote social progress in accordance with the ethos of Islam."

Nowhere in the six-page Saudi "explanatory memorandum" does it mention the bank's administration of the Al-Aqsa and Al-Quds Intifadah Funds. It does make passing mention, without explanation, of a program in partnership with the U.N. Development Program "currently providing special assistance in...the Palestinian territories," but "special assistance" is most likely not a U.N. euphemism for "funding of suicide bombings."

One item apparently not a priority for the Islamic Development Bank and its "ethos of Islam" is the liberation of the millions of women living under the most repressive regimes on the planet. According to the IDB's U.N. observer application: "As of October 2006, the IDB Group's cumulative commitments reached $44.7 billion covering some 5,200 operations," and, among these commitments, the bank "currently provides 0.7 million annually [for]...women advancement programs."

The criterion for granting observer status to intergovernmental organizations at the U.N. is deliberately vague -- its activities must "cover matters of interest." Not surprisingly, the same U.N. General Assembly Committee that believed the work of the Islamic Development Bank was "of interest" also believes a comprehensive convention against terrorism is not. Last month, the U.N.'s Legal Committee once again failed to adopt the draft terrorism treaty due to a definitional glitch. The Organization of the Islamic Conference insists that blowing up Americans and Israelis doesn't count.

The U.N. Charter says membership in the United Nations is open to "peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter" -- among them the commitment to "fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of the human person." This principle, which is supposed to apply equally to any other entity formally accredited by the U.N., didn't seem to matter in this case to the U.N.'s member states. Instead, the recommendation that the IDB be granted observer status was adopted, by consensus, in the form of a draft resolution. The United States looked the other way. Only Israel registered a concern that the bank had relations to Hamas and pointed out that its "organizational chart showed that it had operated Al Aqsa and Al Quds funds, which had known ties to terror groups."

Although the recommendation must now be formally ratified by the plenary of the General Assembly, it is expected to be rubber-stamped before June. The Islamic Development Bank will then join the ranks of the 64 other U.N. observers, on a par with the Holy See, the Council of Europe, and the Organization of American States. It will have a standing invitation to participate as an observer in all of the sessions and work of the General Assembly -- extraordinary global access to policymakers for an entity linked to terrorists.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 26, 2007.

1.) Israel did not cause the Arab refugee problem...the Arabs did.

The UN partition plan of 11.29.1948 called for TWO states: one for the Jews and one for the Arabs. Israel accepted the UN partition plan, and extended a hand of peace and friendship to the Arab state that was supposed to come in to existence at the same time as Israel. The Arab leadership rejected the UN plan and declared war. 710,000 Arabs became refugees ONLY because of the war. Had there been no war, not only would there be no Arab refugee problem, but there would have been a state for the Arabs of British Mandatory Palestine in 1948. Therefore, the full onus of culpability for the Arab refugees rests exclusively on the shoulders of the Arab states whose animus toward Jews and Israel was so great that they preferred killing Jews to helping their Palestinian brethren.

2.) Israel offered solutions to the problem ...the Arabs rejected it.

At the Rhodes Armistice conference in 1949, Israel offered to negotiate the return of conquered territories and the repatriation of refugees IN THE CONTEXT OF PEACE TALKS. The Arabs refused. No peace, no negotiations, no recognition! Better that 710,000 Arab civilians should remain in squalor and exile than that the Arab world should admit that Israel exists. Israeli offers in later years, for reparations and assistance in resettlement, were all rejected by the Arab countries, which prevented the refugees themselves from working with Israel to resolve the problem.

3.) Israel has not kept Arabs in refugee camps...the Arabs have.

Jordan alone permitted the Arab refugees to acquire Jordanian citizenship. Egypt kept Arab refugees in concentration camps in the Gaza Strip (into which the Egyptian army herded them at gun point during the 1948 war, according to Yassir Arafat's authorized biography). Lebanon has 72 laws keeping refugees in their camps and prohibiting them from living like normal free people in Lebanon.

4.) Israel's Arabs are not refugees.

The c. 170,000 Arabs who stayed in Israel became free citizens in a free and democratic state, and today number more than 1,400,000, with representatives in the Israeli Parliament, and working in every profession in Israel's economy. Despite the fact that some animosity and discrimination exists on a personal level, Israel's Arab citizens enjoy more freedom and prosperity than any of their brethren in the Arab world, except the oil-rich sheikhs and their families.

5.) By international law, most of today's "refugees" are not refugees.

International law is clear that the descendents of refugees who are resettled in host countries no longer have the status of "refugee". After almost 60 years, the only real refugees today are mostly in their dotage. Their descendents may arrogate to themselves the status of 'refugee,' but inasmuch as they were born and lived all their lives in a host country, they do not have the legal claim to that status.

6.) Stolen Jewish property off-sets demands for Israeli compensation.

Between 1949 and 1956, almost 1,000,000 Jews were driven from Arab lands by murderous mobs, rioting Arab crowds, and complicitous governments happy to confiscate Jewish bank accounts, real estate, businesses, etc. The Jews of these Arab lands fled with no money, no property, and sometimes nothing more than the clothes on their backs. They fled countries in which they and their ancestors had lived for, on some cases, 2,500 years. Israel took them in, rehabilitated them, and turned them in to productive citizens. A conservative estimate of the total value of property stolen from these bona fide refugee Jews from Morocco to Iran, from Syria to Yemen, is about $2,500,000,000 in 1948 dollars. Assuming a conservative growth rate of 6% over 60 years, that property would be worth $80,000,000,000 today. Let's let that $80,000,000,000, stolen from innocent Jews who were not combatants, nor citizens of a belligerent enemy, be used today by the Arab governments that stole that property, to compensate the "Arab refugees."

7.) UNRWA perpetuates the problem

Of the almost 22,000 UNRWA employees, all but a few hundred are Palestinians. The inmates are running the asylum. The USA and EU provide the bulk of the billions of dollars annually that sustain these 4,500,000 self-identified Arab refugees. Arab countries provide less than 3%...yet it was the Arab countries that caused the problem. UNRWA's mandate from the onset has been to support and maintain the Arab refugees in their refugee situation. The other UN agencies dealing with other refugee populations have as their mandates the resolution of problems; and, indeed, almost all of the tens of millions of refugees created by wars in the 20th century have been resettled...except the Arab refugees.

The Arabs caused the problem, and then UNRWA and the Arab world have perpetuated the problem for its propaganda value against Israel and against the West; today keeping millions of innocent victims in a perpetual state of hopeless, hapless, helpless, homeless squalor -- so that terrorist armies can more easily gain recruits and terrorist governments can blame the west for all the failures of the Arab world.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yid With Lid, March 26, 2007.

While I have sympathy for the British sailors, captured by Iran (and their families also). Tony Blair's verbal rebuke yesterday was out of line. "This is very serious"---harumph!!!

What about the other side of the story --it is not being reported at all. No one talks about the fact that the Britons have been occupying the Islamic homeland of England for centuries. All the Iranians want is for Britain to get out of occupied England and return to the pre 347 CE borders. Well that and allow Iranians who were kicked out by the Anglo-Saxons along with their cousins, plumbers and other acquaintances) to return to their home and establish an Islamic Republic with London as its capital. Getting the British out of London would enable the Iranians to build a mosque on top of the disputed holy site of Westminster Abby. Iranian Imams teach that the Ayatollah Khomeini was once there and rose directly from that site to the nearest 7/11 store for some Beef Jerky, a Dr Pepper Slurpie a couple of lotto tickets and a carton of Marlboro lights.

Over the past months Britain has placed undo hardship upon Iranian people, cutting off aid and erecting the apartheid clock they call Big Ben. Tony Blair should be ashamed of himself; they even force Prince Charles to wear these dopy-looking fake ears. Why don't they listen to the group Human Rights Watch which asks them to stop torturing these freedom fighters and go to a dentist for G-d's sake. Why don't they heed the words of B'tsellem, which is reports that Buckingham Palace is built on Arab land. Lord Snow sees the light he quotes the French ambassador; calling for you and your people to get out of that "Shitty little country."

Tension is beginning to rise--we must work to stop this circle of violence. I even understand that the British Army is planning a disproportionate response to the captured soldiers--the UN Security counsel should act and call for a cease-fire before Britain has a chance to defend itself. We should force a solution upon them because as we all know, there will be no peace in Iraq until the Angl0-Saxons leave the occupied territories.

Some people claim that this is ridiculous, that there were never any Iranians in England, London is not really that important to Islam and the clock was built to protect people from being late. But I say HOGWASH! The rest of the world knows what is right. They will respond the same way that they responded to the Israeli Soldiers being captured.

Contact Yid With Lid at YidWithLid@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Helen Freedman, March 25, 2007.

Will there be any official government celebrations planned in Israel to recognize the 40th Anniversary of the re-unification of Jerusalem, the return to Hebron, and the restoration of Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan to the Jews of Israel -- and the world? If so, we haven't heard of any. The reason for the silence from Israel is that the Olmert government is planning the reversal of the amazing 1967 victory by the Israeli army over the attacking Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, Saudis, and Jordanians, betraying all those who dreamt for centuries of the return to Zion. It is also, of course, a betrayal of the many thousands who gave their lives in order to create a whole Israel.

Americans -- ask your mainstream Jewish organizations, the UJA, UJC, JNF, what celebrations are planned for the 40th Anniversary in America. You'll probably elicit a stony silence, or response about "disputed territories" from those who endorse the give-away plan and refuse to recognize the existence of a whole Israel.

The give-away program was actually begun with the treacherous Oslo Accords of 1993, but swung into full force in August, 2005 when Gaza was emptied of its Jews by order of then PM Ariel Sharon. Wishing to distract the public from his pending indictment for a variety of criminal activities, Sharon pushed forward the expulsion of 10,000 Jews from the 21 communities of Gush Katif and Sanur and Homesh in Samaria. The area, as predicted by the opponents of expulsion, has now become a Hamas terrorist stronghold, threatening the Negev communities.

Now we hear that Israel must talk to Syria. There are "diplomats" who insist that Israel's refusal to do so is stubborn intransigence. What could these talks possibly mean? Only the giveaway of the Golan Heights, Israel's absolutely necessary security position against the Iranian and Syrian backed Hezbollah. Anyone who has been to the Golan, and seen Damascus from the Israeli heights, can appreciate how dangerous it would be for Israel to give away this natural protection. And that goes without mentioning the vineyards, farms, homes, schools, cities and lives of the Jews of the Golan. And yet, the "diplomats" urge talk and "painful concessions."

The Olmert government has been building a wall through Judea and Samaria that is cutting off Jewish communities from other Jews, placing them in what would be the "Palestinian" state, if that disaster should come to pass. The "Saudi initiative", from our "good friends" the Saudi Arabians, who were well represented in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, and who sponsor Wahabiism, the most virulent of the Islamic jihadist religions, requires Israel to return to its "Auschwitz" 1967 borders and requires the right of return for Arabs who fled in 1948. Although the number of Arabs was about 500,000 at the time, their descendants now claim to number in the millions, thanks to the careful protection of UNWRA, and it is these millions who are demanding the right to flood Israel with their return. All of this seems quite reasonable to Ehud Olmert, who is ready to empty out many of the 250,000 Jews of Judea and Samaria, in order to replace them with "Palestinian"/Hamas Arabs who are dedicated to Israel's destruction.

And the jewel in the crown is Jerusalem -- Yerushalayim -- the holy city over which the Jews have cried for centuries. Jews continue to mourn the destruction of the First and Second Temples, and look forward to the day when the Third Temple will be rebuilt on the Temple Mount. Unfortunately, the Israeli government doesn't reflect these yearnings.

In 1967, when Matti Gur ascended the Temple Mount with the victorious Israeli army, and planted the Israeli flag there, proclaiming "The Temple Mount is in our hands," he was ordered to take down the flag. Moshe Dayan gave the keys to the Temple Mount to the Arab Waqf, and since then, Israelis have been fighting to assert their rights to this holiest of places.

And now, we hear that Olmert is considering re-dividing Jerusalem. The "Saudi" plan calls for the surrender of half of Jerusalem to the Arabs. Of course we know that surrendering part is in effect surrendering all. That is what the Arabs continue to tell us. They want to drive the Jews into the sea. They refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, refuse to stop their terrorist activities, and expect to succeed in their goal to Islamize the world. Israel and Jerusalem are only the first step. Tomorrow, the world.

So that is why we do not hear talk of celebrations, parades and special events to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the restoration of the state of Israel to its immediate post-1967 state of wholeness. When the government of Israel is prepared to give away everything that was achieved in the miraculous 1967 victory, how can they celebrate the gains of that six-day war? What is clear is that what the Arabs lost militarily, they understand they can gain diplomatically. They merely have to use the language of "peace" and the western world becomes hostage to them.

But there are those who will not accept the delusions, deceptions and betrayals of the "diplomats" and "leaders" who are only concerned with their personal power positions and are willing to sacrifice the welfare of the country for their own good. There are many remarkably brave and heroic Israelis who will fight against the perfidious ones. We Americans, who understand the nature of the fight, must join with them.

Helen Freedman is the former Executive Director of Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI). Contact her at ghfree@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, March 25, 2007.

The common enemy of all civilized people is extremism, today rearing its ugly head, most perilously, in martyr driven Islamic fundamentalism, an expanding subset of the overall Islamic culture. Credible arguments cannot, however, be made that say Western capitalists have incited this insidious phenomenon. In the cruel jungle of Darwinian capitalism, underdeveloped nations undoubtedly are exploited by powerful imperialistic nations. Any history of say the African continent will attest to that statement of fact. But the radicalization of Islam, a perversion of moderate Koranic imperatives as interpreted by moderate Muslims, much like moderates of any faith who interpret their own gospel texts, eschewing literal demands of violent passages, has nothing whatsoever to do with say non-Muslim forces such as Big Oil or other industrial leviathans interloping into the power structures of Middle Eastern regimes, or the habitation of non-Muslims on perceived Muslim soil. Furthermore, the Jewish State of Israel did not instill the concept of jihad i.e. militant martyr driven holy war within the collective mindset of Muslim extremists. Radical belief systems, especially those imbued by an overriding anti-secular paradise filled afterlife, encouraging violent behavior while inhabiting a less essential earthly domain, are outgrowths of unstable perceptions pertaining to secular existence. It is one thing to defend one's nation from a perceived aggressor, it is something much different to justify that defense, or in fact an incursion beyond one's territory, with the concept of militant martyr driven jihad based on a violent literal interpretation of the Koran.

A willingness to detonate oneself, blowing body parts asunder along with proximate victims, is the sickest of acts, yet is presumably justified by a faith immersed in the glories and afterlife rewards of martyrdom, not necessarily correlated to any presumed overt acts of aggression against that suicide/homicide bomber's nation. If that were not so, there would be many fewer truly innocent victims of such attacks, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is the point of blowing oneself asunder in say a crowded Iraqi food market, where virtually every collateral victim of the horrific explosion is an innocent civilian shopper, not a foreign aggressor? No doubt, fanatical Sunnis blow up fanatical Shiites and visa versa, such tribes still engaging in a religious war that has lasted over 1300 years, but has nothing directly to do with resisting any foreign aggressor, although America and its allies toppled a dictatorial tyrant who heretofore kept a lid on that sectarian war. In Afghanistan, extremist Taliban forces attempt to regain control, through violence, of turf relinquished when American forces invaded, just after the 9/11 catastrophic attacks on American soil. Such aggressive action by the religious fundamentalist fanatical Taliban is however mostly directed at ordinary Afghan citizens, especially women, unwilling to follow strict misogynistic sharia laws imposed by a literal interpretation of the Koran. Again, the perceived foreign invaders, composed of forces not only from America but many other non-Muslim nations, are the perhaps indirect but not primary focus of resurgent Taliban forces.

Modern Israel, since its inception in 1948, remains in an extremely precarious situation, being perceived in agitated propagandized collective Muslim mindsets, both moderate and extreme, as a foreign invader of Islamic Palestine. Yet, the Jewish State did not radicalize collective belief systems found within those extremist subsets of its many Islamic enemies. If moderate Muslims, attuned to the secular world, had any sense, they in fact would perceive the moderate democratic State of Israel as an ally, not at all opposed to dealing with Arabs or other sects adopting a rational Islam, respectful of the many secular issues dominating the Middle East, believing that all human life on Earth is precious without regard to ethnicity. No doubt, the common enemy of all civilized people is extremism, indeed a culturally debilitating disease born from within the afflicted culture, not from without. When and if this condition is recognized for what it is, afflicted mankind will be able to combat it more efficiently and effectively. When and if this is realized, perhaps moderate Muslims will eschew the ranting of jihad junkies, more importantly incarcerate or put to sleep criminally aggressive anti-secular elements within their communities, depose propagandizing exploitative leaders that enable extremists as well as divert attention away from themselves by bashing scapegoat Israel and indeed all Jews, let the disease of religious anti-secular fanaticism virtually die a natural death or more likely become impotent over time, and finally accept the tiny State of Israel as an intrinsic part of the Middle East, not a foreign invader, with much to offer in building that region into a technologically advanced sector of the planet, befitting the new millennium. Let us hope for that epiphany of logic in the very near future.

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. 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 luniglicht@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, March 24, 2007.

Intimidation is more effective than war -- Jim

This was written by Mark Steyn and it appeared in the National Review.

If you read the paper, you'll notice that there are a handful of places that attract the attention of everybody who matters -- the UN, EU, IAEA, NGOs, the full alphabet soup. You'll further notice that, for the fellows pressing ahead with Iran's nuclear program or mopping up the few remaining opportunities for mass murder in Darfur, attracting the attention of the planet's A-listers seems to make not a jot of difference. The bigshot acronyms hold meetings, and the crises they're holding the meetings over trundle along pretty much on schedule.

What then of those problems that don't even catch the jet set's eye? It was about three years ago that I began following events in southern Thailand -- the old Sultanate of Pattani, to us Mad Dogs and Englishmen. It was the numbers at first: Muslim "insurgents" were murdering over a hundred people a month, which seemed rather on the high side. Then I started looking for the bloody details behind the statistics: the two Laotian-immigrant farm workers beheaded for... well, for what? The Thai government isn't occupying Palestine or invading Iraq or stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. And for a while I took to citing the country's southern provinces as a bit of list filler to demonstrate the splendidly ecumenical nature of the jihad: Muslims vs Jews in the West Bank, Muslims vs Christians in Nigeria, Muslims vs Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs Buddhists in Thailand.

Aside from bringing up the rear in my planetary generalizations, what's going on? The International Herald Tribune, in a brief story on the daily barrage of bombings and beheadings, decided it made no sense:

The insurgency is all the more difficult to combat because it does not show its face. Unlike similar movements around the world, this one has not set out its demands or published a manifesto. It is a collection of violent groups without an identifiable central leadership.

You don't say. Now why would that be? When the Herald Tribune refers to "similar movements around the world", it seems to be harking back to the good old days of 1960s nationalist movements. Your old-school insurgent got into the insurgency game against the state because he wanted to be the state: the object was to have your flag fluttering from the palace and swear yourself in as President-for-Life. A generation or so back, there were such groups running around Pattani promoting a more or less conventional Malay-Muslim secessionist movement. But, as in other parts of the globe, the disaffected have become co-opted into something bigger. Who wants to settle for being Minister of Transport when you can be part of a new caliphate that overthrows the entire global order?

To modify the Palestinian peace-process cliches, these "collections of violent groups" are in favor of a no-state solution. In Thailand, they target the lowest officials of the kingdom -- schoolteachers, policemen and municipal functionaries. The object is to emphasize that not only can these people not protect you but that associating with them is likely to endanger you, too. If the state reacts with a bloody crackdown on Muslims, that's good news for the insurgents. If the state instead dithers uncertainly, that works, too. The Buddhist villages in the south are emptying out, week by week, remorselessly.

There are no-state solutions popping up hither and yon these days, from Somalia to southern Lebanon to Waziristan. If you can hollow out a state from within, the husk provides useful cover for all kinds of activities, as we should have learned from Afghanistan. In fact, these non-state actors practice a more effective multilateralism than most great powers. There's a kind of United Non-Nations Insecurity Council out there that seems all but impervious to disruption. According to the South Asia Analysis Group, a thousand Pattanis are studying in Pakistani madrassahs and Wahhabi-Deobandi money and ideology from Waziristan is the principal source of radicalization of Thai Muslims.

In the wake of the July 2005 London Tube bombings by British born Muslims with strong ties to Pakistan, General Musharraf officially banned any non-Pakistani students from studying in his country's toxic madrassahs. Unofficially, life went on much as before. That's another advantage of the no-state solution: in effect, the Islamists move western allies into the field of fire. The roots of many problems from the Horn of Africa to Iraq to south-east Asia to northern England lie in the Pakistani tribal lands, but Washington has no desire to add to General Musharraf's woes. Likewise, the King of Thailand's increasingly nominal sovereignty over Pattani and the "government" of "Lebanon"'s over Hezbollahstan provide similar cover.

And what of the other end of the ideological pipeline? East is east and west is west and ne'er the twain shall meet, but Kipling never saw Heathrow and Manchester airports when the flights land bearing Pakistani wives from the old villages for young Muslim husbands in Bradford and Leeds and Birmingham and Bristol. There, too, is another no-state solution in the making.

Do you know Thomas P M Barnett? He's a very successful author, wonderfully optimistic and full of terrific technocratic advice on how to integrate the "gap" -- the collapsed fringes of the map -- into the functioning "core". I'm a pessimist. If the fellows who run the western world took Dr Barnett's advice, things would be swell. But in practice it's very difficult to crank the State Department or the EU into action, and by the time they do it's too little, too late. And those crises that don't even make the headlines, like the Buddhist villages of southern Thailand, will bleed quietly to the dark fringes. Where's Richard Gere's Oscar night speech when you need it?

Contact Fred Reifenberg at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, March 24, 2007.

A direct correlation exists between the rise of martyr driven Islamic fundamentalism and the per barrel price of oil. As long as industrial nations worldwide are willing to pay extortionist prices for their carbon based energy fixes, as long as industrial nation worldwide will not seriously address manmade global warming, develop energy alternatives, and wean off the burning of fossil fuels, as long as big oil and puppet politicos pretty much control the short as well as perhaps long range destiny of our disrespected planet, oil producing Islamic nations and nations under their thumb need not develop technologies and social structures attuned to century twenty-one, relying on the kindness of 'infidel' strangers to shower petrodollars over their raw material based primitive economies. Modernized progressive nations will not lean on Islamic oil pushers to culturally adapt to a secular world, requiring fairness to all citizens, including gender equality, as long as such industrial dynamos rely on a continuous flow of that vicious viscous substance for their own economic engines. No civil secular oil dependent industrial national leader, alas, truly wants to ruffle the robes of say OPEC moguls, or force Sudan's sadistic president Omar al-Bashir to call off his genocidal janjaweed dogs, lest such energy providers retaliate with spindly fingers, tightening their fossil fuel faucets.

Modern secular industrial oil dependent nations stupidly finance oil revenue dependent regimes with petrodollars, enabling such regimes to underwrite proxy and non-proxy anti-secular religious groups led by fanatics, advancing the socially mutated martyr driven phenomenon of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism against those same industrial nations, bolstered in impact by technologically advanced weaponry. For examples, oil rich Iran now underwrites proxy Islamic fanatics Hizbullah and Hamas, while oil rich Saudi Arabia underwrites non-proxy Islamic fanatic producing Wahhabi madrassas, a/k/a techno-human bomb factories, worldwide, especially in Pakistan. No doubt, the Saudi royal family pays such protection money lest it risks being overthrown by Islamic gangsters obsessed with delusions of grandeur, needing to recruit madrassa educated soldiers and twenty-first century, morphed to the dark side, human cannon fodder, fitted with tailor made de rigueur suicide belts, for planet wide jihad. Indeed, civilized secular mankind is his own worst enemy.

No doubt, the secular civilized world enables an under-productive Islamic intellectually as well as morally bereft, in effect, welfare culture, an insidious expanding subset of overall Islam, thriving on raw material wealth, the antithesis of wealth created by industrious human beings. Furthermore, the more oil a non-thinking world burns, the more glaciers melt, the more chilling will be mankind's ultimate future. So, might it be a no-brainer for civilized industrial nations to focus their best minds on developing a cheap efficient energy alternative to fossil fuel? Will it take a catastrophic event to push such nations in that direction?

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. 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 luniglicht@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, March 24, 2007.

1>MK Ibrahim Sarsour (UAL-TA'AL) drew the ire of right-wing Knesset members on Sunday when he called for "Muslims and Arabs" to "liberate Jerusalem.

Pause a moment. Think about the implications of what was written. Only right-wing Knesset members were irate!! Israel is in the throes of a great civil upheaval. I am writing now from Israel, for the next few days. Jews are Liberal by nature, but today, they are too tolerant, in the face of an intolerant foe, as is the rest of the Western world.

Meanwhile -- Egypt's Mubarak has moved to defent his nation from muslim religious take-over at the hands of The Muslim Brotherhood. See article #2 2> Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak defended on Saturday two controversial aspects of constitutional amendments which will go to referendum on Monday, saying Egypt needed to avert the dangers of sectarianism and terrorism.

1>MK Sarsour calls Muslims to free Jerusalem
Sheera Claire Frenkel,
The Jerusalem Post March 18, 2007
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879115253&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

MK Ibrahim Sarsour (UAL-TA'AL) drew the ire of right-wing Knesset members on Sunday when he called for "Muslims and Arabs" to "liberate Jerusalem.

Speaking at the "Jerusalem First" conference in Ramallah, the lawmaker emphasized the importance of Jerusalem to Islam, and called on participants to "act together to become a torrent on the road to liberation."

"Just as the Muslims once liberated Jerusalem from the Crusaders, so must we today believe that we can liberate Jerusalem. It is not an impossible dream," he said.

MK Muhammad Barakei (Hadash) accused Israel of trying to "empty Jerusalem of its Palestinian inhabitants." Calling Jerusalem a "national issue, not just a religious issue," he called on Palestinians to take cohesive, immediate action to "reclaim the city."

MK Zvi Hendel (NU-NRP) criticized both legislators' remarks and reiterated his call for all Knesset members to take an "oath of allegiance" to the State of Israel before they could serve as lawmakers.

Hendel was not the first to propose such a move. Fellow NU/NRP legislator Zevulun Orlev proposed a bill last year that would prevent anti-Israel citizens -- particularly Arabs -- from serving in the Knesset. A similar bill submitted by Israel Beiteinu MK Estherina Tartman was rejected in October.

Hendel also responded to a comment made over the weekend by Minister-without-Portfolio Ghaleb Majadele (Labor), who said he would not sing the national anthem because it was clearly not inclusive of Arab citizens.

"How many more times will we take the Arab MKs spitting in our faces and then insist on pretending that it's raining?" Hendel demanded. "The Arab MKs, who continue again and again to fearlessly incite against the Jewish people, its symbols and its holy places, and to cooperate with the most bitter and hateful enemy, must get out of the Knesset."

He called on all Zionist lawmakers to unite and ensure that such a move was carried out.

In October, Hendel introduced a bill that would require Israelis to sign a declaration of loyalty to the state before being allowed to vote, in an effort to prevent citizens who are "hostile to the State of Israel" from having a say in the government. The bill was overwhelmingly rejected, however, on grounds of racism.

2>Egypt's Mubarak defends constitutional changes
By Jonathan Wright
(Additional reporting by Cynthia Johnston)

CAIRO (Reuters) -- Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak defended on Saturday two controversial aspects of constitutional amendments which will go to referendum on Monday, saying Egypt needed to avert the dangers of sectarianism and terrorism.

His foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, earlier on Saturday dismissed U.S. criticism of the amendments, which human rights organisations and the main opposition groups have called a step away from freedom and democracy.

The amendments will enshrine in the constitution a ban on parties based on religion and will give the authorities wide powers of arrest, surveillance and trial in special courts.

Analysts say the main target is the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist movement which emerged as the country's largest opposition force in 2005 elections and which opposes any attempt to install Mubarak's son Gamal as the next president.

In a speech in the southern city of Assiut, Mubarak said the ban on religious parties was meant to prevent strife between Egyptian Muslims and the Christian minority, which accounts for about 10 percent of the population.

"I was aware of the constant attempts to cause divisions between the Muslims of the country and its Copts (Christians), wary of the sectarian and secessionist strife which countries dear to us have seen," he added, apparently referring to Iraq.

"I have learnt ... the dangers of mixing religion with politics and politics with religion. The constitutional amendments ... should prevent any trading in religion and attempts to strike at the unity of this country," he added.

The Muslim Brotherhood has tried to reassure the country's Copts that it would not make any changes in their status. It notes that Islam is already the religion of the state.

Mubarak said another aim of the constitutional changes was to stop political violence without recourse to the emergency law which has been in force since he took power in 1981.


"The security and stability of Egypt and the safety of its citizens are a red line which I have not allowed and will not allow anyone to cross," he said.

The rights group Amnesty International said on Friday the amendments would entrench practices of arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and unfair trials, and violate Egypt's international human rights obligations.

One of the amended articles says measures against terrorism will be exempt from restrictions on arbitrary detention and on the surveillance of communications.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is arriving in the south Egyptian town of Aswan later on Saturday for a meeting with Arab foreign ministers, said on Friday that she was concerned and disappointed by the changes.

But Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said: "Only the Egyptian people have the right to say their views on that referendum. ... If you are not (Egyptian), then thank you very much. It's our own development, our own country."

He was speaking at a news conference after U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had talks with Mubarak.

Rice said the United States had hoped that Egypt would be in the lead "as the Middle East moves towards greater openness and greater pluralism and greater democratisation".

"It's disappointing that this has not happened," she added.

A U.S. campaign for democracy in the Arab world peaked in about 2005 but analysts say the momentum diminished when the Bush administration realised it had serious problems in Iraq.

Aboul Gheit said: "Egypt and the United States are friends and we maintain the best of good relations. However, internal Egyptian affairs are an Egyptian affair and nobody else has the right to say anything."

Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily e-mail called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@veredart.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, March 24, 2007.

To the Editors -- The Daily Mail
Associated Newspapers Limited
Northcliffe House
2 Derry Street
London W8 5TT
United Kingdom

Ladies and gentlemen,

After reading Paul Revoir's article below, is any reaction other than indignation and outrage possible?

British citizens must waste no time contacting their local Members of Parliament and forcefully protesting the BBC's arbitrary and irresponsible waste of public funds in this shameless cover-up attempt.

Although I was born and raised in the USA, for many years I was certain that the "Beeb" was always a credible and reliable source of fair, impartial and balanced journalism. Unfortunately, its horrendous Mideast coverage forced me to abandon that certainty several years ago.

As a proud and veteran Israeli of almost 29 years, I must state the painful yet plain fact that the network's Mideast reporting almost never provides a true representation of what occurs in this terribly conflicted region.

I hope that the British public and officials responsible for the BBC's expenditure of public funds will do all that is necessary to prevent the BBC's efforts to avoid compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.


Dave Alpern
Petach Tikvah, ISRAEL

The BBC has been accused of "shameful hypocrisy" over its decision to spend £200,000 blocking a freedom of information request about its reporting in the Middle East.

The corporation, which has itself made extensive use of FOI requests in its journalism, is refusing to release papers about an internal inquiry into whether its reporting has been biased towards Palestine.

BBC chiefs have been accused of wasting thousands of pounds of licence fee payers money trying to cover-up the findings of the so called Balen Report into its journalism in the region, despite the fact that the corporation is funded by the British public.

The corporation is fighting a landmark High Court action, which starts next week, in a bid to prevent the public finding out what is in the review, which is believed to be critical of the BBC's coverage in the region.

BBC bosses have faced repeated claims that is coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been skewed by a pro-Palestianian bias.

The corporation famously came under fire after middle-east correspondent Barbara Plett revealed that she had cried at the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004.

The BBC's decision to carry on pursuing the case, despite the fact than the Information Tribunal said it should make the report public, has sparked fury as it flies in the face of claims by BBC chiefs that it is trying to make the corporation more open and transparent.

Politicians have branded the BBC's decision to carry on spending money, hiring the one of the country's top public law barrister in the process, as "absolutely indefensible".

They claim its publication is clearly in the public interest.

The BBC's determination to bury the report has led to speculation that the report was damning in its assessment of the BBC's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict that the BBC wants to keep it under wraps at all costs.

Others believe that the BBC is using the case to test the law about how much protection it has got from making its editorial activities public and also because it fears that if it loses the case it will create a precedent.

The BBC's action over the case have provoked inevitable charges of hypocrisy as the BBC itself makes frequent used of freedom of information requests to get stories.

The BBC's own website boasts of 69 stories that it says it has broken with the help of the Freedom of Information Act.

If the BBC loses the High Court case next week it could appeal again and again until the case reaches the European Court in Strasbourg.

This would soak further thousands from BBC coffers, which should be spent on making TV programmes. Conservative MP David Davies said: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible."

He added: "I think the BBC are guilty of shameful hypocrisy. What could possibly be in this report that could possibly be worth £200,000 to bury. What is it they feel is so awful in this report."

A source close to the case said they believed that the BBC had spent in the region of £200,000 on the case so far, while another legal expert claimed the cost could be as much as £300,000.

The document was put together by BBC editorial advisor Malcolm Balen in 2004 but never released.

The High Court action next week is the latest episode in what has become a lengthy legal battle which has been pursued by London solicitor Steven Sugar, who made the initial FOI request.

Initially Information Commissioner Richard Thomas agreed with the BBC's decision not to release details of the report.

But Sugar appealed the Information Tribunal and they backed his claims in September. This then saw the BBC appeal to the High Court.

The BBC claims public broadcasters do not have to disclose material that is held for the purposes of "journalism, art or literature".

But the BBC is now facing accusations it is using this rule as a smoke-screen.

It claims the measures are there to protect the integrity of its reporting and protects its journalists from interference from the public.

The BBC believes that this includes the Balen Report.

The BBC also claims that if the court finds in Sugar's favour it could lead to a sudden increase in FOI requests which would require more staff and a further burden on the licence fee.

While the BBC did not reveal the findings of the Balen Report, which was compiled in 2004, the corporation did last year make public the findings of an independent panel report into the BBC's impartiality on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

That report found said that there was "no deliberate or systematic bias" in the BBC's reporting, but said its approach had at times been "inconsistent" and was "not always providing a complete picture" which had been "misleading".

But some claimed that the independent panel report only took a snapshot of the BBC's activities and should have looked more deeply at the reporting of the most troubled moments of the conflict.

Steven Sugar, who said he was prepared to take the case all the way to European court, said: "What I would like to see is the disclosure of an important document which will give us an insight into what the BBC itself thinks of its own performance.

"I would like to see the BBC facing up to its professed interest in transparency and openness."

Contact Fred Reifenberg at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Professor Eugene Narrett, March 24, 2007.

There is a lot of good news concerning Israel, the land and people, every day: they exist by miracles of faith, efforts, devotion, applied insights, holiness and a demonstration of the divine promise. There is a lot of bad news every day about Israel because the sovereignty of the nation is tenuous, the hostility of the world powers, government and NGO's is relentless as expressed by the "world community"; a miracle of existence because there are enemies without and weak spirit within the Land, a self-hatred, projected onto other Jews that invites attack from Amalek (cf. Exodus 17; 1 Samuel 15; Esther, v. Haman the Agagite).

And there is bad news because even when one of the major media unveils some of the implacable genocidal hostility and propaganda masked as education of Israel's enemies within and around it they manage to bury their minimal and belated revelations by not mentioning its most salient points.

This happened throughout the shoah; the lies of omission are if anything even more pronounced in recent years.

The good news for the evening of March 15, 2007 was that the Hannity & Colmes show on Fox News featured a five-minute segment with Brigitte Gabriel on the topic of female homicide-suicide bombers. In the major media they are, of course, referred to simply as "Suicide bombers" or "killers"; in the Arab world they are termed "martyrs" (shaheeds) all misleading or just plain false phrases. Since these "martyrs" purpose is to murder Jews, and that is the reason that jihadists term them "martyrs" than it is misleading and false not to term them murderers since that is their avowed purpose and what in fact they do, if they are successful.

To them success means murdering Jews, destroying the state of Israel and naming it Palestine as the perverted and genocidal Roman Emperor Hadrian did after his legions defeated the third Jewish war for independence and desolated the land and the people.

Jews speak truth to power...

During this five-minute plus discussion, the word "Jews" as in "kill" Jews was used only by Brigitte Gabriel (several times, but not several other times when the context demanded it for clarity); Sean Hannity used the term once; Alan Colmes, of course, did not used the hateful term "Jews" at all although it is for the purpose (and often with the result) of murdering Jews that these "martyrs" are dispatched. The term "murder" went unspoken.

One good thing, -- truth is a good thing, obscuring it is evil -- that was discussed was the brutality and injustice of Islamic treatment of and attitudes toward women. A Muslim women can give mortal offense to members of her extended family by talking, in person or on the cell phone to someone that some male members of her family do not wish her to talk; she can give mortal offense be being seen with someone a family member decides he does not wish her to be or be seen with. She can give mortal offense by being accused of adultery, a kind of hideous version of how the accusation of a man, husband, co-worker, friend, acquaintance -- by a woman in Anglophone nations can result, the mere accusation alone in that man being treated by the judicial system as a violent criminal. Maybe that's why feminists like Colmes and legions of others do not so much or anything about Islamic "honor killing" of women, one form of which is ordering and equipping them to gain "atonement" by murdering JEWS by exploding themselves in the midst of Jewish men, women and children, including doctors and nurses giving them free medical care. Maybe it's because of the hatred of Jews that pervades western culture since its origin, a culture which is entirely indebted to the Jewish people whose principles it pillaged and deformed in establishing itself (and that's why it's been disintegrating ever since it was cobbled together, for all its wondrous accomplishments) that western mass media, despite the pitiless and unjust feminism they have promoted for forty years or more if one includes the push for legal and limitless abortion and female-initiated divorce that has destroyed this culture from within; maybe it's because of this hatred of Jews and because of this feminism that western mass media don't mention that it is legal in several Islamic states to punish women that offend male members of their family by gang-raping them. Why don't the feminists who rule the western mass media make a big, big story about that? It's the reason that gang-rape is endemic in Eurabian-ruled portions of Europe. Maybe that's what feminists want here, too... the other side of the coin to what they are and what they have done.

One last word on this selective attention that numbs and conditions consumers of news: the ironies here described are treated in the opening discussion of the sages of the Zohar (Exodus 193) on Torah portion Ki Tisa (Exodus 35-38:20). Among several salient lines of discussion the sages compare Israel, the nation that builds the sanctuary on this earth for its Creator Who designated them as His am segulah ("intimately beloved people") to its two relentless opponents, Edom and Ishmael who have been entwined genetically via forbidden marriages since the days of Esau whose behavior "was a bitterness of spirit to his parents." Esau, he is Edom it states thrice (Genesis 36) which is Europe in its imperial sense, the EU and the religions of Rome; Ishmael is Islam whose founder thence traced his descent from Kedar.

Noting the insightful and timely metaphors of the sages, the big beautiful "cow" of Edom offers its rump to the per'adam, the wild ass, the human beastliness of the gangrapers of Kedar whose legal (by their law) brutality is the complement to the lawless law and engrained perversion of Edom as observed in the ideology, media, courts, academia and other institutions of the post-modern west. Together they generate Eurabia and postmodernism, monsters worthy of Ovid, and foreseeable from his fables. The sages teach that the evil impulse for forbidden sex is particularly desirous of dwelling in Israel, the desirable land as embodied in the calves set up by Yeravam, the female one being in Dan toward which Israel tended (Zohar, ibid). We see this in the past two centuries in simple terms as many Jews are attracted to western (Edom's) norms that themselves are deformations of Judaism. So Israel's institutions and categories of thought in this century is doubly removed from itself, a mockery of mockery of itself, which explains much of the bad news. The goddess worship the pagan west injected into Israel corrupts and cripples Israel and keeps it from being a Jewish state. The monstrously unjust condemnation of Israel by the UN commission thus is bitter poetic justice. It is a wake-up call, a shofar in the city. Amalek is the snake of sexual perversion and profligacy as evidenced by widespread prostitution. "They who kiss the calves" will slaughter people as is done to the settlers. This perversion will be suppressed by Yesod Ha Tiferet, "beauty in holiness" when the covenant is honored, fathers teach their sons and genuine peace follows victory and dissipates the lies of the War on Terror (Zohar 200a on portion Vayakel). Then Israel will have a sanctified covenant and state...

When the UN Commission on the Status of Women issued its report, as Anne Bayefsky (www.eyeontheun.com) noted on March 20, the only nation in the world it condemned was Israel. The million female slaves in Saudi Arabia, their passports confiscated; the hundreds of thousands of raped and mutilated women of Darfur; the forced abortions in China, the Christian women and schoolteachers murdered in Nigeria all were ignored in order to demonize the Jews. At the very time that gangs of Israeli-Arab thugs were raping Jewish women to 'resist the occupation' Euro-UN mouthpiece John Dugard was condemning Israel for racism and the Germans introduced a prissy qualification.

But as we have seen, Jews in Israel have no human rights and no humanitarian crises because the nations do not consider them human. Israel will live only be standing up in its own resistance and asserting its humanity, promise and mission.

Secretary of State C. Rice admitted that American tax-dollars sent to Fatah wind up with Hamas, as the Arabs defiantly state. "We will have to be more careful," she told Congress asking for an amount less than the original $86 million. "I'm doing my best," she added, her words lacking a direct object which clearly is to murder Jews and destroy Israel. Abu Mazen -- Abbas stated weeks ago that "our rifles [received from the US] will be raised against the occupation," that is, used to shoot Jews.

As long as it means alliance with those who want to murder Jews and call it "martyrdom" and "resistance to the occupation" Europe and the US State Department will join the jihadist enemy in every form of perversion, including those of language and thought that describe Jews living in the Israeli heartland as "occupiers" who must be expelled. That lie is called the Road Map; bad news for other days. AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Professor Eugene Narrett teaches writing and Literature at Boston University. He is the author of hundreds of articles, columns and reviews on politics, American culture and the arts. He is completing a study on Romanticism and the longterm decline of Western Culture. He writes often on subjects relating to Israel and Judaism and is a weekly columnist for the MetroWest Daily News in Framingham, Massachusetts. Contact him at culturtalk@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 23, 2007.

The basic essay is by Ahmed Bedier, Tampa executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Tampa. Bedier's essay is called "CAIR: Attacks Seek to Silence Muslims" and it was published March 19, 2007 on the CAIR website
(http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=43570&theType=NB). The annotations comes from the What would Charles Martel Do? website
(http://whatwouldcharlesmarteldotm.blogspot.com/2007/03/ on-bediers-small-band-of-critics.html). The comments by Pim's Ghost, writer for the What Would Charles Martel Do? website, are in bold.

Attacks Seek to Silence Muslims

The audacity of any claim that CAIR and Muslims in general are being silenced when CAIR and Bedier post videos of themselves on major news networks is notable absurd.


You'd better believe people have questions, and as a nationally known organization, CAIR has every right ot be questioned by both private citizens and the media. This is standard for all groups such as CAIR.


Not mine, I attempted to question one Muslim (Bedier) and urge other Muslims to speak out, as well as defending the rights of other Muslims to speak out and not be silenced (Tawfik Hamid, Kareem Suleiman, among others).

This New York Times article on the challenges facing the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) exposed the relentless efforts by "a small band of critics" made up of racist right-wing and neo-Zionist extremists who seek to silence and marginalize American Muslims and groups that represent them by exploiting anti-Muslim fears in our nation.

Speaking solely for myself here, I am not "racist" nor am I even "right wing" on many issues. Even if I were a right-winger, is Bedier here insinuating that citizens of a certain political stripe have no right to their opinion? He could, arguably, be speaking about a rather sizable portion of our government, after all.

Define "neo-Zionist extremist". Is anyone who believes that Israel has a right to exist a "neo-Zionist"? Or even a Zionist? And if so, why is the position that a country has a right to exist "extremist"?

CAIR's purpose is very clear. It is a grass roots organization that serves as America's largest and most visible Muslim civil rights group. CAIR is to the Muslim community what the NAACP is to the African-American community or what the ADL is to the Jewish community.

Define "grass roots". Much of CAIR's networking and calls for financial and other support fall under this category. It's founding could be considered (and has been) to be anything but "grass roots".

For the record, CAIR unequivocally condemns terror attacks targeting people of all faiths and in all areas of the world.

Selectively, and usually only when pushed to do so.

CAIR operates under the strict guidelines of its core values. These values include: support for freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and a commitment to supporting policies that promote dialogue, civil rights and diversity in America and worldwide.

Again, selective activism. Note no "Action Alerts" or other statements in support of many high profile Human Rights Campaigns in support of rights of Muslims worldwide (Nazanin Fatehi, Kareem Suleiman, among others). Why not? Look for yourselves, the statements in support of major campaigns of groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are not listed on CAIR's website, nor on their numerous TV appearances, many of which are available at YouTube Otherwise, their main public statements and campaigns, especially lately, in support of any groups abroad and regarding policies within the U.S. have been in support of "Palestinian" issues and to further condemnation of Israel and supporters of Israel "neo-Zionist extremists" etc.).

Do "policies that promote dialogue" include releases such as this one that play the victimhood card and are attempts to smear those with questions about CAIR, rather than speak with them publicly? See again Bedier's performance on CNN's Glenn Beck show as posted below. His stance was opposition to "diversity" of thought regarding Muslim opinions about Islam in the U.S. and abroad.

Funding for CAIR chapters is no secret: Monies are raised here and spent here, with not a penny of it going overseas.

How many lawyers helped with the wording on this one? Note the use of present tense. Also note this
(http://www.investigativeproject.org/FCNA-CAIR.html), which applies as well to some other statements in this letter.

It is important to note that not a single active law enforcement official has ever accused CAIR of any wrongdoing. CAIR enjoys positive relations with officials from city hall to Capitol Hill, from the police to the FBI.

Again, here
(http://www.investigativeproject.org/FCNA-CAIR.html), plenty if not most here
(http://www.danielpipes.org/biblio_cair.php), not to mention Anti-CAIR, here
(http://www.anti-cair-net.org/), where there are quotes abounding from elected officials. Also note that CAIR tried to sue Anti-CAIR out of existence and failed. Note also the difference in the law enforcement probes into CAIR employees and founding groups and the lack of indictments against the organization "CAIR" as a whole, which has only been questioned and under suspicion. Again, careful wording, but quite misleading.

With this in mind, it is obvious that the attacks against America's largest and most visible Muslim civil rights group have nothing to do with national security but rather are rooted in hatred toward Muslims and Arab-Americans.

Speaking again for myself, I dislike many aspects of Islam from a theological standpoint. As a Christian who has read and reread the Quran and the Sunnah, this is a natural position, as these Islamic Holy Texts are quite hostile to my own religion. Is Bedier here saying that scrutiny of Islam as a religion is unacceptable and as is scrutiny and study of other religions, and that furthermore this scrutiny and criticism equals hatred of Muslims themselves? Please clarify this Bedier, this is not true of me, and quite insulting to myself and others.

Furthermore, regarding hatred of "Arab-Americans", Bedier does not note that the majority of Arab-Americans are not Muslim, but either Orthodox Christians or descendents of Christian Arab immigrants. Some of my best friends fall in this latter group, and many other friends fall into the Arab-American Muslim category. I don't hate my own friends, Bedier. Adding to this, I have even voted for an Arab-American for President of the United States (yes, other readers, smack me now). Has Bedier? I think my record of not hating Arabs based on their ethnicity is quite clear. Sorry Bedier, wrong accusation, try again.

The real "scrutiny" should be directed toward the motives of the Islamophobes who are generating these baseless accusations. Their politically motivated attacks are meant to silence the voice of American Muslims and to promote the only agenda they deem acceptable -- their own.

"Islamophobe" is an ill-defined and absurd term. I dislike the Salafi and Wahabi ideologies within Islam and their radical growth in this century as well as the last. I am not alone in this, and have found agreement in this position amongst many Muslims, both mainstream Sunni and Shi'a. Phobias refer to irrational fears, and my fear of the growth of Salafism and Wahabism worldwide and in the West particularly are not irrational, but well founded on statements of intent put out by terrorist and political organizations of this ideology. It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you, and these groups, from al Qaeda to the Muslim Brotherhood to splinter groups in most Western countries have released statements that are quite threatening. Baseless?

Also, in the above links regarding law enforcement, note the amount of sources cited by those investigating CAIR. Can you actually prove each "baseless"? Please try, I'd love to see the results.

Many of those smeared and maligned in this letter also heavily support many Muslim Americans who do not support the agenda of CAIR itself. We are not trying to silence "American Muslims" as a whole, and the agendas of those we criticize (note, not try to silence, but criticize) are rather radical. This is our right as American citizens, and is not "racist" or "Islamophobic", so please stop calling us that as well as "hate bloggers" and other names, Mr. Bedier.

Ahmed Bedier has a long history in the Tampa Bay area of either maligning his opponents into silence through stigmatizing them or talking them into agreeing to cease their criticisms of him. That not everyone is amenable to this tactic is what is what bothers him, not the accusations made in his letter, in my opinion.

[Editor's Comment: The host of the Always On Watch Two website commented on this essay: Excellent parsing of those statements from CAIR. This statement of CAIR's is particularly a gem: It is important to note that not a single active law enforcement official has ever accused CAIR of any wrongdoing. Never mind the CAIR CEO's who have been arrested and/or deported!

From CAIR: "For the record, CAIR unequivocally condemns terror attacks targeting people of all faiths and in all areas of the world." Then let's hear individuals--OBL, for one--condemned by name.

At my site, I have posted toward the top info about UAC's invite to CAIR to burn OBL in effigy. Guess what? CAIR is not interested. Hmmmm...]

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio (HaDaR) Tezzo, March 23, 2007.

BTW... for those who don't know: the law that forbids ONLY JEWS to purchase land or buildings in Judea, Samaria and Gaza without the personal permission of the Israeli Minister of Defence, was passed in 1979 by the First Begin Government, that is by LIKUD and NRP, the SO-CALLED, ALLEGED, PRETENDING TO BE "National Camp"...with ALSO the votes of the charedi parties...

They are the SAME GUYS who gave away ALL THE JEWISH LAND THAT WAS EVER GIVEN AWAY BY ISRAEL DEPORTING THE JEWS LIVING IN IT, from 1979 to 2005, from Sinai to the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria.

They are the same guys who in 1981, under the authority of Prime Minister Begin and Interior Minister Yosef Burg of the NRP, SO AS NOT TO UPSET THE ARABS, had 30 tons of cement dropped in the place where Rav Getz, ZTUQ"L, and Rav Goren, z'l, had begun excavating UNDER Har HaBayith and discovered a very large HALL with a VAULT DATING FROM THE FIRST TEMPLE ERA.


On 21 Mar 2007, at 09:55, HaDaR wrote "Shalom Akhshaw This Time Has Seen Well!!" Qiryat Arba, 21/3/2007

The extreme left-wing and pro-palestinian group Shalom Akhshaw (Peace Now) has always been acting to kick us Jews out of our ancestral land to give her over to the blood-thirsty Arab enemies, who, just like the nazis, dream of nothing but our destruction.

At Peace Now they have always preferred that the people forget the thousands of Jews who were assassinated in the most brutal of ways for hundreds of years BEFORE the Six Days War and the Liberation of Jerusalem, of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, FORTY YEARS AGO, and way before our return to the land of our ancestors, which is CERTAINLY NOT Tel Aviv!

The case of the house purchased by the Jewish Community of Hebron and filled with Jewish residents two days ago is no exception: since the beginning they did everything in their power to obtaine the forcible and even violent expulsion of the Jews who took possession of the premises.

Which doesn't mean that this time they don't have a point...

In the case of the purchase of the building between Qiryat Arba and Hebron, which had been empty for 11 years and whose every block was paid in gold by the Jewish Community of Hebron, at Peace Now they seem to have seen well: the reasons that they adduce to push the government to use the army and the police to expel the Jews from the house are apparently written black on white in the book of the "Laws of Sodom" which, according to this regime, should regulate our lives.

In Israel, in fact, there is a law -- which is ILLEGITIMATE, SINCE IT IS COMPLETELY DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST THE JEWS AND ANTISEMITIC IN NATURE -- according to which ONLY WE, THE JEWS, cannot purchase real estate in Giudea or Samaria without the personal authorisation by the Minister of Defence.

Of course, considering that the current Minister of Defence is a mustached STALINIST, WHO HATES THE JEWISH PIONEERS OF JUDEA AND SAMARIA AND ALL THAT WE REPRESENT, and he is in obvious need to show that he can accomplish something, the perspectives are not so good: there is a risk of spilling of Jewish blood to ensure the implementation at any price of such an anti-Jewish hatred and anti-Jewish discrimination, which have been internalised by many of those who hold the reins of the regime in Israel.

Once again they look for the favour and the approval of the nations, rather than caring about justice and about the teachings of our Holy Torah.

ONCE AGAIN THE TORAH IS RIGHT: He who is merciful with the cruel, will end-up being cruel to the merciful (Kohelet Rabba 7:16)

End Arab occupation of the Land of Israel: Judea to the Jews, Arabia to Arabs


End Arab occupation of the Land of Israel: Judea to the Jews, Arabia to Arabs Be`ahavath Israel -- from HaDaR- a Torah-wing Jew from Qiryath Arba Hebron one of those that some people call "religious fanatic, gun-toting settler":-)


He who is merciful with the cruel, will end-up being cruel to the merciful -- Kohelet Rabba 7:16


On a visit to inter-war Berlin, Rabbi Yerucham Levovitz of Mirrer witnessed household pets dressed in pants and sweaters. He commented: "Where they treat animals as humans, in that place they will slaughter humans as animals" and he quoted the verse "Those who slaughter men will kiss their calves" (Hosea 13:2).


When terrorists kill a Jew in Erets Israel , there are two responsible parties: the terrorists and the government that allows it. -- Rabbi Meir Kahana, ZTUQ"L, HI"D



"He [your enemy] shall besiege you in all your gates, until the fall of the tall and fortified walls in which you trust throughout your land..." -- Deut. 28, 52

Ezekiel Chapter 13:10 Because-, even because they have led My people astray, saying: Peace, and there is no peace; and when it buildeth up a wall, behold, they daub it with whited plaster; 11 say unto them that daub it with whited plaster, that it shall fall;


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) U.S. Founding Father. Signatory of the Declaration of Independence and of the U.S. Constitution


Every drop of Jewish blood spilled by Arab terror, is on the hands of ALL those who refuse to work for the removal of these blood-thirsty beasts from among us. They cannot say: "Our hands did not spill that blood." -- HaDaR


Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil. (Isaiah 5,20)


"At a time of universal deceit -- telling the truth is a revolutionary act." (George Orwell)


"Lots of bad editorials are better than a beautiful obituary." -- an old Israeli saying from the times before "Lemmings Disease" and "Osloporosis" struck most of the country-


"The strength of the prophets of Israel lay in the fact that they proclaimed the Truth when everything was against it." -- Andre Malraux


Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. (George Orwell, Partisan Review, 1942)


"Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time, and your government when it deserves it." (Mark Twain)


"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor -- he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation -- he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city -- he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared." -Cicero, 42 B.C.E.-


"No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel. No Jew has the authority to do so. No Jewish body has the authority to do so. Not even the entire Jewish People alive today has the right to yield any part of Israel.

It is the right of the Jewish People over the generations, a right that under no conditions can be cancelled. Even if Jews during a specific period proclaim they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the authority to deny it to future generations. No concession of this type is binding or obligates the Jewish People.

Our right to the land -- the entire land -- exists as an eternal right, and we shall not yield this historic right until its full and complete redemption is realised." -- David Ben Gurion -- at the Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, in 1937

Contact the poster at HaDar-Israel@verizon.net)

To Go To Top

Posted by Daryl Temkin, Ph.D., March 23, 2007.

Why did Moses have to stop and take notice of that burning bush? Couldn't he have simply walked past it and not have engaged in conversation?

In a progressive view, Moses became a radical Egyptophobe who publicly denounced the terrible conduct of the Egyptian taskmasters, slave owners and, worse, he discredited the words of Pharaoh. Moses exposed Pharaoh and embarrassingly demonstrated that he was not a "moderate". But in spite of a mountain of evidence, the progressive view insisted that Pharaoh's political leadership was just fine. Moses' view was marginalized and seen as alarmist and extremist.

The "progressive" slaves hated Moses' freedom campaign because they saw it as disruptive to Egypt, and a justification for anti-Jewish protests. The progressive intellectual slaves proclaimed Moses to be a stupid stutterer who couldn't even pronounce basic words. Although all the documents of Egypt consistently pressed for the annihilation of the Jews, the progressives argued that Pharaoh was really benign and had recognized the existence and rights of the Nation of Israel -- it was only for political reasons that Pharaoh couldn't publicly state his recognition.

Two professors from the prestigious Nile University published research which indicated suspicion that the Israelite nation was not politically supportive of Egyptian attitudes and was organizing to achieve its own goals. Progressive slaves quickly argued in favor of continued Jewish enslavement.

The fact that Moses the radical wanted the Jews to abandon Egyptian enslavement was a terrible affront to Egyptian taskmasters and was a reason to initiate widespread anti-Semitism. The progressives claimed that if the Jews would only stay and cooperate with the Egyptian plan to kill them, then hatred of the Jews would not have to be aroused.

The progressive slave position declared that Moses was an "imperialist expansionist" whose goal was to have the Jews leave Egypt and become a free people in their own land. Leaving Egypt meant that the Jews were planning to conquer the entire universe. The progressives warned that the Jews who entered the Sinai desert would be the beginning of an unbearable occupation and would create an unsightly refugee problem of Jews living in makeshift tents for decades. The world would be in constant fear regarding where the Jews would settle and which indigenous population would be displaced.

In the face of trying to negotiate with an administration that doesn't recognize you, Israel embarked on a unilateral decision to leave Egypt. The progressives protested the decision claiming that it was misguided, it wouldn't lead to the betterment of the Israelites, and that the Egyptians were given virtually no choice in the matter.

By leaving Egypt, the Jews robbed the Egyptians of their slaves. Robbing a nation of its slaves was a human rights violation of the Ramsee Convention's Protection of Slave Owners' Rights. At the Nile International Court of Justice, crowds of progressives joined Egyptians chanting, "Give us back our slaves so they can serve us."

The prosecution's legal argument stated that the slaves couldn't leave Egypt because that would cause an enormous loss to Egyptian brutality and would basically destroy Egyptian brick production. The price of bricks would skyrocket and cause the collapse of the international brick market.

Progressive slaves joined the Egyptian conspiracy theory stating that the Jews knew the opening and closing times of the Red Sea and therefore planned the entrapment and destruction of Pharaoh's army. Furthermore, they claimed that the Israeli apartheid leaders had filled Egyptian swimming pools with blood so that an entire generation of Egyptians couldn't learn how to swim. The enormous damage caused to Egypt with the loss of countless waterlogged chariots, army uniforms, drowned horses and soldiers would be the fault of the Jews.

Egyptian historians conducted conferences to prove that the Jews never belonged in Egypt and that they only came to steal the Egyptian land. Yet, the Egyptian-Goshen two state solution was touted by progressives as being a safe and secure living condition that would guarantee Jewish enslavement. The security fence surrounding Goshen would comfort Egyptians that no slave would ever escape.

Moses realized that no matter how hard Jews slaved away for the Egyptians, and no matter how many "Nile Prize" science awards the Jews would earn, the Egyptians would continue publishing anti-Semitic school textbooks. No matter how perfect the Jews would be, the Egyptian media would continue preaching that the Jews are the usurpers of the land, pariahs and blood sucker expansionists whose only interest was to rob Egypt and to push the Egyptians into the sea. In response to the blatant Egyptian anti-Semitism, the progressive slaves chose to be silent and just act as if nothing was wrong.

Using magical thinking, the progressives claimed that eventually Egypt would recognize the Israelites and the Egyptian taskmasters would stop killing Jews for sport. The progressives claimed that everything would be fine if only Moses would stop his demands and the Israelites would behave as model cooperative slaves. But if Moses continued to demand freedom and liberty, the Egyptians and the world would be forced to hate the Jews.

Although the progressive slaves would fight ferociously for other people's right to be free, when it came to themselves, it was better that they remain a no-people with no rights and no-land, and let the nations of the world decide where and what should be done with them.

Then, the progressives turned the discussion of freedom up-side-down. They claimed that Moses was the real threat to the Jews, not Pharaoh, and that Moses was the enslaver. They claimed that the world hated the Jews because of Moses' plan to take the Jews beyond their borders. The progressives just wanted to be loved by those who articulated their plans to kill them.

Pharaoh preached that he wasn't anti Semitic -- after all, he was a Semite; so how could he be called anti-Semitic? Pharaoh was just "anti-Israel". He just didn't want the Jews to go off and become their own people in their own land. The fact that he made it legal to kill, murder, and abuse the Israelites was just a minor detail which human rights groups would choose to ignore.

It is estimated that 80% of the Egyptian Jews were against the Moses plan of seeking personal and religious freedom. If there had been a democratic vote, Moses would have been defeated by a landslide, imprisoned, and likely lynched.

The 80% of the slave community who sounded so rational in their refusal to leave Egypt vanished; some say they disappeared during the biblical Plague of Darkness. Basically, they became invisible because their beliefs led to the erosion and dismantling of the Jewish mission.

How different are things today? The official progressive position is that Israel must work at becoming loved. They are to accept Hamas and its non-recognition of Israel's existence Palestinian Unity Government. Israel is expected to make more high risk concessions and accept more security restrictions. As Pharaoh of old, the new "PA Unity Government pharaoh" wants the same: to make the lives of the Jews more vulnerable with very few rights to self protection, fewer rights to self-preservation, and basically a renewed enslavement.

Progressive, which means "to progress", needs to be renamed, perhaps more accurately, "recessive". For all who consider what the Jews have brought to this world to be of great value, had the so-called "progressive" ideology prevailed, the whole world would have all remained in a plague of darkness.

Daryl Temkin is the founder and director of the Israel Institute and can be contacted at: DT@Israel-Institute.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, March 23, 2007.

Following the awarding of the Jerusalem Conference "Lover of Zion" Award to Jonathan Pollard, IsraelNationalRadio's Yishai Fleisher and Alex Traiman spoke with his wife Esther and her husband's long-time pro-bono lawyer, Atty. Larry Dub.

They first asked Esther about her husband's condition and his daily struggles of being alone. "It's now year 22," she said, "and I think that what troubles Jonathan even more than the harsh conditions, his failing health and the daily tortures, is what he sees as the failure of the People of Israel to wake up. G-d, in His kindness, has given us the Pollard case so that we might wake up and redeem ourselves by fulfilling our obligation of mutual responsibility. What G-d wants from us is unity -- absolutely nothing stands in the way of Jewish unity!"

"Our goals and aspirations have been perverted," she said. "Instead of seeing and understanding how the US is acting towards us, we are an entire generation that is aspiring to be more and more like them! That's pretty shocking. Yet Hashem has chosen, in His infinite wisdom and kindness, someone as great and as strong and as whole as Jonathan to be the model and example for us... We have to wake up. This troubles Jonathan more than anything else that he is enduring -- that his beloved nation is in trouble and that we're losing the Land because of it. This conference is a great step in the right direction; the organizers have made a tikkun ( rectification) of the government's evil towards Jonathan in this regard."

The First Correspondence

Asked how she got to know her husband, Esther explained: "I was living in Jerusalem, at the time, working for the Ministry of Justice, and teaching English at Hebrew University. I saw an ad asking people to write to Jonathan. I knew nothing about the case. I had no idea who he was. But I had an aerogramme, and I figured that here was a Jew in trouble, so I dashed off a quick note. Jonathan later said that when he read the letter, he used two of his last three stamps from his monthly allotment- because he sensed he had to answer me. He sent me two envelopes -- one with all the information on his case, and the other was a personal letter. I read the informational one first, and couldn't believe that something that bad could have happened in the US. And when I read the second one, and I was blown away -- because I thought that someone who had experienced such injustice would be filled with hatred and bitterness- yet instead I saw someone who was filled with light and love for his people and his country. I felt that I was looking into my own soul. We both felt right from the start that we were soulmates...

"Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, Jonathan's rabbi, had a vision of our relationship and our marriage, and when he went to visit Jonathan in 1991, he told Jonathan that he had had a dream of the woman he would marry, and he described -- me! Jonathan was delighted because this was the first time he could share his heart about our relationship. Unfortunately, there was a Mossad agent who had to accompany the Rav, and he wasn't very discreet, and the next thing we knew, it was all over the newspapers that Jonathan had a girlfriend whom he intended to marry... But it didn't matter; it was lovely to us that even the honored rabbi recognized the cosmic nature of our relationship, and how Hashem brought us together for a purpose...

"Prayer is very important to us, it's our main ammunition... We have a very small team of people working for Jonathan; they are worth their weight in gold, working 24/6 for this purpose... Everything was done [by the authorities] to ensure that we wouldn't still be around at this point; their plan was that he would die in prison -- either by hopelessness, or by his own hand, or by an 'accident.' But the Shechinah [Divine Presence] is with him and that's why he survives, as Rabbi Eliyahu says. In spite of all odds, he has survived; Hashem had other plans for him -- and G-d willing, he will be home very soon.

Atty. Dub: US Justice System is Cruel

Larry Dub has been Jonathan Pollard's pro-bono lawyer in Israel for 21 years. Excerpts from his remarks:

"Taking a careful look at the American prison system, it appears to be one of the cruelest in the world -- one that rivals Third World countries. In Israel, we have a system that allows for rehabilitation, with weekend visits, conjugal visits, and the like; but in the US, it's 24/7 -- inside for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Jonathan's first lawyer made a terrible "mistake" in which he failed to protect Jonathan's right to appeal, and the American legal system has ridden the coattails of that injustice to punish him way beyond the median sentence for that particular crime -- passing classified information to an ally. There are others who have committed the exact same crime, and they received 2-4 years in prison, but when it came to Pollard, they felt that it was time to teach the Jews a lesson -- and they gave him life without parole...

"We have exhausted every possible legal avenue in the US; the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case, rejecting all of our pleas, even a request to see the secret documents that [the late Defense Secretary Caspar] Weinberger claimed that Pollard passed to Israel. We have never been permitted to see the file, and all we hear are innuendos like, 'Oh if you only knew what he did...' We simply wanted to be able to argue that in fact, the documents were not as damaging as everyone claimed. Our lawyers in the US had top CIA security clearance to see the documents -- but the Supreme Court ruled that they had no reason to see these documents. This leads me to believe that no one there was interested in seeing justice done, but just in burying it.

"The only option left now is a Presidential pardon, for which President Bush need not consult with anyone; he can simply sign the paper tonight. Also, Olmert can get on the phone and ask Bush to pardon him, and if he does so, Pollard can be home for Pesach -- and that's our hope... The government has a basic responsibility, just as it has towards the other missing and kidnapped soldiers, to bring them home. Just as Netanyahu got our three Mossad men home from Jordan in just five days -- because that was his basic obligation.

Reminded that former CIA head James Woolsey had recently said on Arutz-7 that it was time for Pollard to go free, Dub said, "I can go you one better: Weinberger himself, when asked why he didn't mention Pollard in his autobiography, said that the Pollard story wasn't such a big deal... This means that all those accusations and innuendoes about how much terrible damage he did are all nothing. Those who have seen the files, such as Rudy Giulani and Senator Chuck Schumer, say that he should be released immediately..."

Asked if he suspects the Americans of some form of anti-Semitism, Dub said that the CIA originally came to Pollard with a list of prominent American Jews and "asked him to point out which of them were conspiring with him. When Pollard said that none of them were, they simply refused to believe it; the Americans just don't trust the Jews."

Video: Jonathan Pollard at Jerusalem Conference Awards' Ceremony

Audio: Interview with Esther Pollard, 11 minutes 19 seconds:
http://msmedia.a7.org/arutz7/shows//English-show/highlights/ EsterPollard11m.MP3

Hillel Fendel is senior news editor at Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, March 23, 2007.
This is by Hillel Fendel and it appeared in

(IsraelNN.com) The most ant-Semitic political entity is the Palestinian Authority, says Haifa University's Prof. David Bukai at the Fourth Annual Jerusalem Conference. Acclaimed columnist Caroline Glick and anti-Semitism researcher Prof. Robert Westreich also spoke.

Middle Eastern affairs expert Dr. David Bukai of Haifa University, speaking Monday at a Conference session on anti-Semitism in Europe and the Islamic world, said that anti-Semitism in Egypt and particularly in the Palestinian Authority is much more worrisome and significant than in Europe.

Bukai compared the situation today with that of the Nazi days: "The world's indifference to the Iranian threats is exactly as it was towards Hitler's threats. Academia in those days supported the Munich agreement of capitulation -- and today it's the same story, with appeasement once again leading the way... Extremist Islam wants to bring the modern world back to the 7th century. They say this openly -- not like the Nazis, who tried to hide their intentions."

"However," Bukai said, "Iran is the wrong target for the war against anti-Semitism. Iran is not motivated by anti-Semitism; it wants to turn Iraq and Lebanon into Shiite countries, it wants to activate Hamas and Hizbullah, it wants to strengthen the militant line in Gaza and in southern Lebanon -- but all this has nothing to do with anti-Semitism... The main dispute in the Middle East is between the Shiites (10% of the world's Moslems) and the Sunnis and the so-called moderate nations. The Shiites are more threatening to Saudi than to Israel; Israel is their excuse."

Other speakers did not agree.

Palestinian Authority: Champion of Anti-Semitism "In terms of anti-Semitism," Dr. Bukai said, "Egypt is very bad; anti-Semitism in the Moslem world started there, and it is now found in all strata of the country. But the main site of anti-Semitism in the Middle East, and maybe in the whole world, is in the Palestinian Authority. It is found in government announcements, and in the media, and mainly in the schools. No other school system in the world has anti-Semitism as bad as in the Palestinian Authority, which is filled all over the place with calls for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state and its replacement with an Arab state. MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch bring this out very well. But I don't hear Eli Weisel [who called for a world-wide struggle against anti-Semitism] and others calling for action against the PA -- perhaps it is related to their support for the Oslo process..."

Bukai explained why it is that the radical secular left and radical religious Islam have joined up with each other: "[The late Italian journalist and author] Oriana Fallacci gave three reasons: 1. They are both anti-American. 2. The left no longer has an ideology of its own. 3. There is no more proletariat, and Moslem immigrants in Europe have taken their place. But the real explanation lies elsewhere. The reason is that in truth, the left is very religious -- it believes in absolute truth, and absolute good and bad, just like Islam, and it posits that there are believers and those who are not believers; both the left-wing and Islam are churches -- they both think they're always right, and they never apologize; they both want a world based on their vision of truth, backed up by verses of Marx and Muhammed; they both want to control how we think, and punish those who do not fall in line; both are autocratic and, actually, anti-liberal."

Contact Avodah at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 23, 2007.

This was written by Michael Fortune and it appeared yesterday on his website

Because I've recently been posting some stuff I've learned about Islam, my friend Jim decided to forward me an email "to get a rise out of me." Which worked. The email asked the following question: Can a good Muslim be a good American? And overwhelmingly concluded "no."

Since I can't read the Quran in its native Arabic, I hauled out my English translation of the Quran called The Message of the Quran translated and explained by Muhammad Asad that I received in the mail for free from The Council on American Islamic Relations [See previous post "Christ In The Quran?" for details] and added my responses in italics which Jim said he'd look forward to reading. Can a good Muslim be a good American? What do you think?

Theologically -- no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia. Allah means "The God" and is the Arabic word for the monotheistic worship of the only true God in heaven that was known by the bedouin descendants of Abraham's first son Ishmael [Genesis 16] in Arabia for thousands of years before Muhammad was even born.

Religiously -- no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256). That's not what that reference says. Sura 2:256 actually says "There shall be no coercion in matters of faith. Distinct has now become the right way from [the way of] error: hence, he who rejects the powers of evil and believes in God has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing."

Scripturally -- no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran. Common sense contradicts this conclusion. Who do historians say actually protected many of the oldest manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments? Muslims. Sura 5:68 adds, "Say: 'O followers of the Bible! You have no valid ground for your beliefs unless you [truly] observe the Torah and the Gospel, and all that has been bestowed from on high upon you by your Sustainer!"

Geographically -- no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day. This makes very little sense. American Freemasons and their buildings always face east so they can pray toward the sun. But we don't question the patriotism of the numerous Freemason Presidents of the United States do we?

Socially -- no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews. Much of what Muhammad was taught came from Jewish and Christian friends. Sura 5:47 says, "Let, then, the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what God has revealed therein."

Politically -- no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan. There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world many of whom do not advocate violence. Moderate voices like Hamza Yusuf [click here to read his article "Love Even Those Who Revile You"] and Abou Fadl who wrote The Great Theft [click here or the graphic to the left for more info] could probably do a better job of getting their message out, but they often do not receive much help from the media or from Christians.

Domestically -- no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34). As hard as it is for us understand, Muhammad actually elevated the treatment of women in the violent 6th century. Sura 4:34 is comparing how Muslims should treat a righteous devout wife versus an unfaithful unrighteous unrepentant wife.

"Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of the possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard their intimacy which God has [ordained to be] guarded. And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them."

Sura 4:15-16 adds, "And as for those of your women who become guilty of immoral conduct, call upon four from among you who have witnessed their guilt; and if these bear witness thereto, confine the guilty women to their houses until death takes them away or God opens for them a way [through repentance]. And punish [thus] both of the guilty parties; but if they both repent and mend their ways, leave them alone: for, behold, God is an acceptor of repentance, a dispenser of grace."

Intellectually -- no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt. Because Muslims believe the Quran is 1 book from a single revelation of God that Muhammad subsequently dictated to his scribes over 23 years instead of the numerous revelations they believe the 44 authors of the Bible received over 1500 years, Muslims believe the Quran and the Bible are totally different in nature making comparisons between the two fruitless. Muslims still highly respect the Bible though and don't understand why Christians would ever leave it on the shelf or casually place anything on top of it using it as a coffee table coaster.

Sura 4:136 says, "O you who have attained faith! Hold fast unto your belief in God and His Apostle, and in the divine writ which He has bestowed from on high upon His Apostle, step by step, as well as in the revelation which He sent down aforetime [the Bible]: for he who denies God, and His angels, and His revelations, and His apostles, and the Last Day, has indeed gone astray."

Philosophically -- no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic. We should judge an idea by its founder and its teachings not by its abuses. Muhammad and the Quran do allow for freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam can co-exist. There are moderate Muslims teaching and preaching this. Christians should help them do it.

Sura 5:48 says, "If God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but [He willed it otherwise] in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you. Vie, then, with one another in doing good works! Unto God you all must return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ."

Spiritually -- no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names. I think it's ironic that all 99 names of Allah in the Quran are also found in the Bible for God. Sura 6:59 adds, "For, with Him are the keys to the things that are beyond the reach of a created being's perception: none knows them but He. And He knows all that is on land and in sea; and not a leaf falls but He knows it."

Therefore after much study and deliberation...perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. After a little more study and deliberation, perhaps we should be suspicious of anyone who makes blanket statements about entire groups of people that are at best misleading and at worse blatantly false. Sura 5:42 says, "But if thou dost judge, judge between them with equity: verily, God loves those who act equitably."

Call it what you wish...it's still the truth. Truth can afford to be fair. Sura 3:103 says, "And hold fast, all together, unto the bond with God, and do not draw apart from one another. And remember the blessings which God has bestowed upon you: how, when you were enemies, He brought your hearts together, so that through His blessing you became brethren; and [how, when] you were on the brink of a fiery abyss, He saved you from it. In this way God makes clear His message unto you, so that you might find guidance."

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Caplan, March 23, 2007.

The following articles are from today's Arutz 7. There is something very much in common among all but the last article, in that they all demonstrate the complete double standard that is applied by the Israeli authorities when it comes to dealing with the Israeli people. On the one hand, all of the law enforcement institutions are pathetically weak, thereby endangering the people. When it comes with dealing with the Arabs, the criminals, and the leftists, there is a very laissez faire attitude of laxity and permissiveness, almost like anything goes. On the other hand, when it comes to good Jews who love Eretz Yisrael and Am Yisrael and would give their lives for both of them, then there is no effort spared by the law enforcement institutions to try and prevent these wonderful people from doing their avodas hakodesh.

However, we can see from the last story a fulfillment of the verse that many are the thoughts of man, but the advice of Hashem is what takes the day. Despite the efforts of these law enforcement institutions and their handlers in the government to separate our People from our Land and to physically and spiritually attempt to weaken our People, Hashem prevents them from prevailing. Out of the ashes of Gush Katif and Amona, comes the upcoming marriage of Yitchak and Ayelet. May Hashem bless this young couple and enable their wedding to take place bishaah tovah umutzlachas in the ruins of Amona and enable them to build a bayis neeman biYisrael in Eretz Yisrael hashleimah, and may Hashem bless the efforts of our People to reclaim Homesh on Monday!

"'Blatant Double Standards' in Police Investigations"
by Hillel Fendel

(IsraelNN.com) Three Border Guard policemen have been suspended, just a day after being filmed hitting a suspected Arab rock-thrower, while policemen indicted for beating Jewish protestors are still in active service.

The Ynet news service prominently featured an "exclusive" film of a Border Guard policeman hitting an Arab youth near Shechem on Wednesday, after repeated rock-throwing attacks on Israeli jeeps in the area. The next day, Ynet proudly announced that as a result of its report, Border Guard Commander Hassein Fares had suspended the policeman and his two partners from active service.

The three suspected Border Guard policemen were summoned to the Department for Investigating Policemen (Machash) Friday morning to explain their actions.

The head of the Machash Investigative unit, Avi Peretz, said that despite the film, the policemen would be summoned to give their version of the events: "Despite all, we have to hear the suspects' version. In similar cases, policemen have even been sent to jail... We still have not found the complainant, but I hope that we will receive an official complaint [from him]."

'Blatant Double Standard'

"This is a blatant example of a double standard," Orit Strook, the head of the Yesha (Judea and Samaria) Civil Rights Organization, told Arutz-7 this morning. "When there is a case of violence against Arabs, there is an immediate suspension, but we have cases of police violence against Jews -- in which criminal indictments have already been handed down! -- and the policemen are still serving and have not been suspended."

Strook, a resident of Hevron, provided some examples:

"Mounted policeman Dudu Edry, who has been indicted of trampling Yehuda Etzion in Amona over a year ago, has not been suspended. Policeman Yaniv Reuveni, who was photographed choking a boy from Netzer Hazani during the Disengagement protests, has not been suspended. Police officer Yechiel Amsalem kicked and broke the jaw of a protestor, yet has not been suspended from active duty..."

Strook said that 100 complaints against police violence at Amona last year have been submitted, but only three indictments have been served.

The Border Guard unit patrolling the Hawara area, near Shechem, is often pelted with rocks. In this Wednesday's incident, the police stopped a crowd of youths suspected of taking part in throwing rocks that day. One youth did not stop when ordered to by the police, and it was he who was filmed being hit.

The first talk-back in the Ynet story, and others afterwards, commented that it would have been fair of Ynet not to suffice with the testimony of the boy who was hit, but to bring the Israeli side and evidence of frequent rock-throwings as well.

Shmuel Medad, head of the Honenu organization that provides legal aid for those facing legal charges for actions they took in the framework of their duties protecting Israel and the like, said, "The suspension of the three policemen is very grave. The State has placed its policemen in an impossible situation -- expecting them to protect us under very difficult and hostile conditions, and then we judge their actions while watching TV or the internet from our living rooms. What happened to 'don't judge someone else until you are in his shoes'? ... Not to mention that this is clear discrimination, in that policemen who hit Jews are not judged as quickly or as strictly as those who hit Arabs."

"Karadi: Law Enforcement Bodies are Weak"

(IsraelNN.com) Outgoing Police Commissioner Moshe Karadi said Friday that the public's sense of security has been disrupted. "Unfortunately, said Karadi, "all of the law enforcement agencies are weak: the police, the prosecution, the courts and other enforcement agencies, as well as the prisons."

Karadi mentioned the release of the murderers of Shaked Shalhov -- a girl mistakenly killed in a mob hit -- as an example of what was weakening the system. The murderers were released because a Supreme Court judge ruled the trial had dragged out. "It's frustrating," Karadi said.

Karadi said that all of the parts of the law enforcement system needed to be strengthened: "I think," he said, "that the other systems need to be more resolute and have more deterrence, and the police too."

Karadi, Ashkenazi to Discuss Homesh Operation

(IsraelNN.com) The IDF and Israel Police have yet to decide which of them will get the dubious honor of preventing the repopulation of Homesh by Jews. According to one news report, the police will be in charge of evicting Jews from inside the ruins of the community, while the army and additional police forces will place roadblocks around the site.

A large group of Jews is expected to try and enter Homesh Monday, in an attempt to revive the community which was razed in the Disengagement.

Outgoing Police Commissioner Moshe Karadi will meet IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and discuss plans for preventing the repopulation of Homesh early next week. "There is an argument now, if it is the police's job or the army's," Karadi told an audience in Beersheva Friday.

Report: "Two Battalions Guarding Homesh from Jews"

Arutz 7 / IsraelNN has been informed that two IDF battalions have been taken away from activity in the Golan Heights and stationed in the evacuated community of Homesh in northern Samaria. The battalions were apparently brought there as part of the IDF's preparations for the planned resettlement of Homesh by Jews this coming Monday.

Boaz Haetzni, one of the organizers of the Homesh resettlement, says the IDF's involvement is another example of the government's folly, its disconnection from reality and its warped agenda. "The government is taking soldiers away from preparations for the next war which is about to begin, and for which it will be responsible," Haetzni said.

'Shalom House' May Be Evacuated -- IDF Radio

(IsraelNN.com) IDF Radio says there is growing probability that Shalom House -- the strategically located house in Hevron in which 200 Jewish students made their home earlier in the week -- will be evacuated. According to the military station, the Ministry of Defense has looked into the matter and has determined that the Minister of Defense never gave his approval to enter the building, as is required by law.

Orit Strook, a Hevron resident, is quoted as saying a decision by Defense Minister Amir Peretz to evacuate the building would be a political one: "if the Defense Minister decides not to give the final seal of approval... this would be anti-Semitic behavior," she said.

"The question is political, not legal."

Plowshares into Swords: Former Jewish Towns are Terrorist Camps"
by Hana Levi Julian

(IsraelNN.com) The prediction by the Biblical prophet Isaiah that enemies will beat their swords into plowshares may have been carried out by the Jews of Gush Katif -- but Palestinian Authority Arabs in Gaza got it backwards and are now using the former Jewish agricultural communities as terrorist training camps.

The towns of Elei Sinai and Dagit, former Jewish communities in the Gaza region, are now being used to teach new terrorists and upgrade the skills of those who are already experienced in attacking Israeli civilians and soldiers.

Earlier this week, Israelis living in the western Negev reported hearing explosions that upon investigation turned out to be part of explosives training exercises carried out by the ruling faction in the new PA unity government.

The Gaza trainees are using the formerly Jewish towns to practice producing and using explosives, ambushing soldiers, shooting rockets and more, according to a senior member of Hamas. He added that the terrorists are preparing for an Israeli operation in the area, which they believe will take place in the near future.

"Closing of a Circle: Wedding Made in Amona"
by Hillel Fendel

Yitzchak Shlissel and Ayelet Biber, who met while working to save Gush Katif and Amona, will be married next week -- in Amona.

Yeshanews reports that Yitzchak, 28, and Ayelet, 21, knew each other casually while working in the Ta Katom (Orange Cell) Students Group on behalf of Gush Katif. However, following the Gush Katif expulsion in the summer of 2005, their ties got stronger as the government's plans to destroy nine Jewish homes in Amona became more immediate. They worked together in Amona during the destruction, and their second meeting there will happen next week -- under a wedding canopy.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in one of his first moves after taking over as Acting Prime Minister following Ariel Sharon's massive stroke early last year, sent in large police and army forces to destroy nine newly-built houses on the hilltop of Amona, east of Ofrah. The Supreme Court had ruled in accordance with a Peace Now claim that the land on which they were built belonged to Arabs -- though the said owners never showed up to demand or claim their land. The Jewish residents maintained that the homes were constructed legally and in accordance with government promises that they would be approved.

In the event, on Feb. 1, 2006, the destruction of the nine Amona buildings was completed in approximately five hours. Stories and videos of brutal and unprovoked police violence -- over 200 protestors were injured -- began surfacing almost immediately, and continued for weeks thereafter.

The happy bridegroom Yitzchak, a resident of Shaarei Tikvah near Petach Tikvah, recounts: "Our relationship essentially began on the backdrop of Amona, on the Sabbath before the destruction [Jan. 2006]. Ayelet helped organized a Sabbath for the Ta Katom members from all over the country. On Saturday night, I suggested that we make a short movie to call upon the public to come to Amona to protest the destruction. After we finished, we went to Amona, arriving the night before the destruction [as did hundreds of others]."

During the violent destruction, Yitzchak became one of hundreds of protestors who were injured by policemen. He was atop one of the houses, filming a policeman breaking into the house next door (where dozens of protestors were 'sitting-in') by smashing its windows. "When he saw me, he sent another policeman to beat me and break my camera. I was rushed by ambulance to the hospital, and received five stitches in my head."

Ayelet, a former resident of Disengagement-destroyed Netzarim in Gaza and now living in Ariel, says that she was in another house at the time, waiting to hear what Yitzchak had caught on film -- they had apparently not agreed on the correct approach -- and what was going on outside.

"After a while," she recalls, "Yitzchak phoned me and said, 'Listen, my head was cracked open and I'm on the way to the hospital.' I was in shock, and couldn't believe that things had gotten that far. Then he added, 'Oh, by the way, our argument about the camera -- it's not relevant anymore.' I went to visit him in the hospital the next day -- and the rest is history."

Yitzchak was pleasantly surprised that Ayelet took the loss of her camera so well, "and not only that -- she came to visit me the next day. So I began to think..."

The wedding will be held in the ruins-turned-temporary-wedding-hall of Amona, overlooking Ofrah in the Binyamin region. The canopy will stand outside the ruins of House #9, where Yitzchak was beaten, and the dancing and wedding feast will be in the area of the "Tent of the Wounded." The wedding will be conducted by Rabbi Dov Lior, Chief Rabbi of Kiryat Arba-Hevron, and the couple will live in Ariel.

"For us, this is a closing of a circle," say Yitzchak and Ayelet. "Yes, there was an expulsion from Gush Katif and a destruction of Amona, but precisely from amidst this loss we are continuing to build new homes and new families."

Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, March 22, 2007.

This was written by Rev Willem Glasshouwer of Christians for Israel, International. It appeared on their website

What, according to the Bible, are the borders of the Promised Land? The answer is more global then specific.

From the river of Egypt (Wadi el Arish, the eastern branch of the Nile) to the Great River, the Euphrates (Gen. 15:18). The area from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines (the Mediterranean Sea) and from the wilderness to the Euphrates, (Ex.23:31).

From the wilderness of Zin as far as Rehob, where the road to Hamath starts (Num.13:21). "The hill country of the Amorites...all the neighbouring peoples in the Arabah, in the mountains, in the western foothills, in the Negev and along the coast, to the land of the Canaanites and to Lebanon, as far as the great river, the Euphrates, (Deut. 1:7).

"From the wilderness to Lebanon and from the river Euphrates as far as the Western Sea (Deut.11:2). From the entrance of Hamath to the brook (wadi) of Egypt, (1 Kings 8:65; 2 Chron. 7:8). From the entrance of Hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah (2 Kings 14:25). From the river Euphrates to the brook (wadi) of Egypt (Is. 27:12).

What is striking here are the recurring references to the Euphrates. Is this river to be the northern or eastern boundary, or both? If the Euphrates is to be the eastern border, then the Lord has promised a large area east of the Jordan! If the Euphrates is to be the northern border, then Syria (Aram) also belongs to Israel, but the area to the east may be limited.

Although it is reported that during the entry into the Promised Land the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh settled beyond the Jordan, this has not always been accepted without discussion (Num. 32; Joshua 13:8-33; 18:7; 22:1-4, 9, 25; Deut. 3:16-18).

Various descriptions in the Bible seem to assume that the Jordan is the eastern border of the promised land of Canaan (Num. 32:29-42; 34:2-12; 35:10; Deut. 32:49; Joshua 22:9-11), meaning that the Euphrates is viewed as the northern border (thus including Syria and the Golan Heights). Mention is also made of Gilead, the northern portion of the land beyond the Jordan, which is also promised to Israel: "And I shall bring them to Gilead and Lebanon, and there will not be room enough for them," (Zech. 10:10; Jer. 50:19). "Benjamin will possess Gilead," says Obadiah 19-20.

The division of the land described by the prophet Ezekiel in chapters 40 to 48 is yet another story when he speaks of the temple, and describes it in great detail. According to some, this temple seems to be situated not even in Jerusalem, but in the area where Shiloh was once located, that is, the place where the tabernacle first came to rest after the trek through the wilderness. The area of the Promised Land is also defined (Ezek. 47:15-20; 48:1, 28). A survey of these data leads some to conclude that the heart of the Promised Land and the temple will be to the west of the Jordan, and that once the final temple has been built and is in place, the Euphrates will indeed be the northern and maybe even the eastern border.

If one perceives all these biblical covenants and promises Almighty God made to Israel one starts to realize that ultimately Israel does not exist by the grace of the United Nations, or Europe, Russia, China, or by the grace of Christianity or Islam, but by the Grace of God, on the basis of an everlasting covenant to which the Lord Almighty swore a solemn oath. Further, that the Lord Almighty is true to his everlasting covenant with Israel.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 22, 2007.

It is dangerous to assume that your enemy shares your values.

The USA has done this consistently in its diplomacy (or lack thereof) in the Middle East ('surely Mr.Akhmedi-Nejjad's first concern is the well-being of his people' -- while some Iranians will tell you that his first concern is full-body burqas for all Iranian women, and a close second is his WMD program so he can nuke Israel).

When the USA makes mistakes such as have been made consistently in the Middle East since 1953, much of the world pays for them in money and blood.

But when Israel makes such mistakes, whether driven by USA pressure or just sheer stupidity, the price may be the very existence of the state of Israel.

That is really dangerous diplomacy.

Note especially the DEBKA (c. 85% accurate in my opinion) evaluation below:

'Iran not only gave them (hamas and Hezbollah) arms, ordnance, cash and training, but also strategic depth. Its Revolutionary Guards have spread their wings into Gaza through Sinai up to the Suez and Mediterranean, and built up a war menace to Israel from the south, as well as the north. The realistic prospect is therefore closer to war rather than peace, the culmination of a process which the prime minister (Olmert), his foreign minister (Livni) and their advisers consistently missed or misread.'

So now Israel is facing the possibility of a war on a total of seven fronts at once:

1.) North: Hezbollah out of Lebanon

2.) Northeast: Syria in league with Iran and Hezbollah

3.) South: Sinai (where Muslm Brotherhood and el-Qaeda and Iranian Pasdaran and Revolutionary Guard are active)

4.) West: Hamas from Gaza Strip in league with Iran and el-Qaeda

5.) East: the Palestinian kingdom of Jordan once the Hashemites are overthrown by a coup engineered by hamas/Hezbollah/Iran/Syria

6.) East: West Bank where Hamas and Fatah and 12 other terror gangs operate with relative impunity

7.) Internal: 25% of Israeli Arabs support Hezbollah, Hamas, deny Holocaust, support kidnappings...and some percentage of this 25% may be willing to take a stand, strike a blow, even risk 'martyrdom' for Islam.

NB! I have no doubt that the majority of Israeli Arabs (Christian and Muslim) are loyal citizens who would never lift a finger to harm their country (Israel). BUT, there are 1,400,000 Israeli-Arabs. Even if only 10% harbor evil intentioins against Israel, that 140,000 potential terrorists operating with impunity in the entire country. Even if only 10% of these actually take up arms agianst israel, that is 14,000 -- an army the size of Hezbollah's.

Can Israel survive such a war?

Israel did survive such a war in 1948 when seven armies marched against her from the south, west, east, and north. BUT...the army suffered 10% casualties...which translated in to 1% casualties for the population as a whole.

Such a casualty rate today... (assuming that Iran does NOT succeed in dropping a nuclear bomb or two on Israel -- if Iran did succeed, the casualty rate would be much higher and the country would probably succumb to massive Arab invasions and pervasive massacre and genocide)... would mean c. 60,000 dead.

As comparative per-centages of population, that is equal to c. 2,940,000 dead Americans, and uncountable millions more wounded.

What steps would we want our government to take, pre-emptively, to avoid such a scenario?

This below is from the DEBKAfile.

New Palestinian government marks collapse of Israel's Middle East positions
March 18, 2007, 10:10 AM (GMT+02:00)

The Hamas-Fatah government taking office Sunday, March 18, is more than a policy failure by prime minister Ehud Olmert and foreign minister Tzipi Livni; it is another milestone on the road to the collapse of Israel's Middle East positions at large, on a scale comparable to the setback to its deterrence from the mismanaged war against Hizballah last summer.

This fiasco is reflected in the horrified outcry across the board, from members of the Olmert government coalition and the opposition alike, as Israelis woke up Sunday, March 18, to face a hostile Palestinian government led by a terrorist organization, godfathered by Saudi Arabia, armed by Iran, and blessed by Western powers.

Exactly a week ago, on March 11, the Israeli prime minister said he was positively reviewing sections of the Saudi Arabian 2002 "peace plan." He did not waver when Riyadh declared the hard-line text would not be modified when it is re-launched at the Arab summit in ten days' time. That afternoon, Olmert had his second interview with Mahmoud Abbas, chairman of the Palestinian Authority and leader of Fatah. He stressed the importance of "staying in touch with positive Palestinian elements." This was also Livni's mantra during her recent travels to the US and European capitals.

They both fell into the Palestinian trap, effectively sanctioning the seal of moderation with which Abbas and Fatah stamped a Palestinian government dominated by the Hamas terrorists.

Even more dangerously, the two Israeli leaders failed to question the covert Yalta-type understanding reached by Riyadh and Tehran. They ought to have grasped that when the Saudis and Iranians stuck their deal to preserve the Siniora government in Lebanon, as DEBKAfile revealed in late February, they must also have come to terms on the Palestinian issue.

And so they did. It was a package: Tehran called off the campaign led by its patsy Hizballah against the anti-Syrian Lebanese government, gaining stronger representation -- at Syria's expense, while the rival Palestinian factions were told in Mecca to share power -- at Israel's expense.

Olmert and Livni forgot a permanent Middle East axiom: Israel's neighbors can always set aside their differences for common action against the Jewish state. Therefore, Sunni princes and Shiite clerics easily agreed on a Palestinian formula that would imperil Israel's most vital interests.

They figured that, just as Syrian president Bashar Assad is too isolated to challenge his dependence on Tehran, so too Israel is too dependent on Washington to complain about Saudi under-the-table transactions with Iran for the sake of a deal on Iraq.

In the past year, Olmert-Livni policies have been so closely synchronized with Washington's, that many of Israel's vital interests have gone by the board.

It was their vain hope that Arab governments in fear of Iran's ambitions would come to terms with Israel and move the Middle East closer to peace. This misreading was shared by opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu. What happened instead was that the so-called moderate Arab camp stood aside when Tehran focused its attention on building up the menace to Israel on the backs of the now-kosher Palestinian radicals.

Iran not only gave them arms, ordnance, cash and training, but also strategic depth. Its Revolutionary Guards have spread their wings into Gaza through Sinai up to the Suez and Mediterranean, and built up a war menace to Israel from the south, as well as the north. The realistic prospect is therefore closer to war rather than peace, the culmination of a process which the prime minister, his foreign minister and their advisers consistently missed or misread.

Addressing the Washington pro-Israel lobby AIPAC's annual conference last week, Olmert and Livni both came out in support of the Bush administration's military strategy in Iraq. Since that strategy hinges largely on covert Saudi-Iranian diplomacy in Washington's name, Israeli government spokesmen implicitly gave America a blank check to pay for an Iraq accommodation at Israel's expense.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 22, 2007.


An Israeli settler was stabbed to death near Hebron. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. Its representative threatened to attack more soldiers and settlers who commit crimes against the (Muslim) people of Hebron (IMRA, 2/27).

The particular settler was a religious Jew who used to pray in isolated areas and minded his own business. He committed no crimes. Islamic Jihad did. It stereotyped him and picked on him because of his religion. LENDING CREDIBILITY TO EXTREMISTS

The NY Times headline of 3/6 was, "Israeli Says Iran Is Training Hamas Men." The sub-headline was, "Palestinian PM calls the Accusation 'Propaganda'" (A8).

Paired, the headlines take the Muslim contention seriously and put it on a par with the Israeli one. That is neither fair nor wise. The Muslims constantly propagandize deceitfully, while Israel tries to be fair about its external enemies. It would be as ridiculous as this pair of headlines, (1) Britain Says Nazi Germany Invaded Poland; and (2) Third Reich Calls the Accusation Propaganda. Another example: (1) US Says Soviets Violate Test Ban Treaty; and (2) USSR Denies the Accusation."


Quotations are taken out of context, then criticized. Instead of reasoned argument, we have sound bites. Pollsters tell politicians what would be popular to say; nobody knows what most politicians believe in. They run for office for power. Elections cost so much, that the chief donors control the candidates.

Those observations were by Newt Gingrich, who proposes real debates. Cal Thomas considers him a thoughtful potential candidate (NY Sun, 3/6, Op.-Ed.)

Has Mr. Thomas forgotten that when Gingrich was Speaker of the House, he abused his power for partisan advantage, behaving undemocratically? Thomas made a point about the power of donations to corrupt candidates. The NY Sun usually ignores that problem -- it touts unrestrained donations as free speech.


The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) had speakers at a couple of US colleges. When a member of the audience asked a question that could embarrass the speakers, the speakers didn't answer. Instead, campus security officers ejected the questioners, beating them in the process (IMRA, 2/27).


Muslims think of themselves as Muslims, not as Sunnis or Shiites. Sunnis and Shiites have not fought each other seriously for centuries. They cooperate in Iraq against US troops and in the P.A. against Israeli troops.

The clergy of both groups follow the orders of powerful governments. When those governments or factions within them make power plays, they may tell the clergy to stress Sunni-Shiite differences. But the underlying struggle is over power. However, there is a risk that the masses may take the propaganda seriously (Youssef Ibrahim, NY Sun, 3/5, p.7).

If Mr. Ibrahim is correct, we have misunderstood the Iran-Saudi rivalry as a religious one, and suppose that we are not in the gun-sights of both Muslim sects. His controversial assertion shows the necessity of getting the facts about Islamic culture.


Sec. Rice tried to rally Sunni Arab states into an alliance against Shiite Iran. She calls them moderate, though they include S. Arabia. Instead, S. Arabia concluded that the regional danger is from foreign interference. On the other hand, by itself, S. Arabia has gotten other Gulf States to cooperate in mutual defense (Eli Lake, NY Sun, 3/5, p.1).

S. Arabia is the font of Sunni jihad. Egypt is going Islamist. By foreign interference, they may be referring to her.


We try to extinguish the fiery lava of jihad, while the volcano that emits it, the totalitarian governments and movement, remains intact. Our assumptions are false, that: (1) A strong offense creates enemies, whereas it defeats and discourages them, as in WWII; (2) Poverty causes war, whereas it causes emigration; (3) Democracy guarantees freedom, but people can pick dictators; (4) The Islamic culture of slavery and suicide is as worthwhile as ours of freedom, life, and prosperity; (5) It is moral to sacrifice ourselves for aggressors; (6) It is wrong to defend ourselves, whereas since aggression is evil, it is wrong not to defeat it. Pacifism against aggression is wrong, for it would encourage aggression (Jewish Political Chronicle, 11/2006, p.47 from John Lewis, The Objective Standard, Winter, 2006).

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@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 22, 2007.

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Israel-Jordan tensions flare over discovery of king's covert support for hard-line Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal

March 22, 2007, 9:35 PM (GMT+02:00)

Israeli officials and army chiefs were taken aback by an intelligence report summing up two years of research, which exposed Jordan's King Abdullah, Israel's partner in peace and the war on terror, as being secretly in league with the Damascus-based radical Khaled Meshaal.

A high-placed Israeli source commented: "All these years Israel was guided by the knowledge that Meshaal was sponsored by Damascus and more recently Tehran. We now learn the entire Hamas leadership also enjoyed the patronage of the Hashemite court in Amman. It has been a real shock."

It also catches Israel in a diplomatic crisis with both its Arab peace partners a week before the Arab summit in Riyadh. Cairo claims Israel's responsibility for hundreds of Egyptian troop deaths was exposed in an Israeli TV documentary.

The Jordanian-Hamas connection came to light during Israel's information-gathering on the stages leading up to the formation of the Palestinian Fatah-Hamas government. The rancor spilled out into acerbic exchanges between Jerusalem and Amman.

March 16, prime minister Ehud Olmert said a precipitate US withdrawal from Iraq would jeopardize or even bring down the regime in Amman. The king riposted that Olmert would do better to deal with his own shaky government than with Jordanian affairs.

On March 20, parliament in Amman condemned Olmert's words, maintaining, "The Hashemite regime in Jordan, which has not been at any time a fragile country or lacked the attributes of a state, will remain a strong homeland, unaffected by skepticism of developments in the region."

The dispute casts a long shadow on Israel-Jordanian collaboration in the war on Islamist terror, DEBKAfile's counter-terror reports. US president's security coordinator Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, joined by the British and Canadians, is organizing a Jordanian-Palestinian military force to prop up Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah in relation to Hamas.

Tuesday, March 20, the American general reported to Congress in Washington that Hamas commands a well-trained army which is bigger and better equipped by Iran than Abbas' security forces.

This was the first time an American military officer has made such an assessment of relative Fatah-Hamas strength.

The compilers of the Israeli intelligence report question the consistency of Jordan on the one hand contributing to a military force supposed to bolster Palestinian moderates while at the same time backing Hamas. They also ask, according to DEBKAfile's sources, if Jordan can be relied on to select non-Hamas members for the Palestinian unit designed to offset Hamas' military strength. Were Hamas infiltrators weeded out? And can Jordanian officials be trusted not to leak the force's secrets to Hamas?

The ties between the royal house and Hamas, according to Israeli intelligence researchers, have always been managed by Muslim Brotherhood leaders close to the throne.

From Wnd's Jerusalem Bureau
"Rice concedes U.S. possibly funding terrorism"
Can't guarantee funds to Palestinians won't reach 'the wrong hands'
Posted: March 21, 2007
By Aaron Klein

JERUSALEM -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today admitted she cannot guarantee U.S. funding for security forces associated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization would not reach "the wrong hands."

Rice said she would reduce a funding request for Fatah forces following concerns last month expressed by key lawmakers that some of the money would be used for terror-related purposes.

The Bush administration in January pledged $86.4 million to strengthen the Fatah forces, including Force 17, Abbas' security detail, which also serves as de facto police units in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

At the time, Abu Yousuf, a Fatah militant from Abba's Force 17 security forces, told WND while U.S. funds and weapons being transferred to his group would be utilized to "hit the Zionists."

Last month, Congress placed a hold on the $86 million transfer pending a clarification from Rice as to where exactly the money would end up.

During a hearing today before the House of Representatives Appropriations subcommittee, Rice said she would make a new request for less money.

She conceded, "It will request less money, precisely because some of the money that I would have requested I did not think I could fully account for."

She did not say how much money would be cut from the original request.

"I hope that is a sign for you that we take very seriously our responsibilities," she said. "I have no interest in having to come here one day and say, 'you know this funding did not end up in the right place.' I will do my very best," she told the committee.

While the aid is being temporarily blocked, it wasn't immediately clear if U.S. weapons would continue to be transferred to Fatah. The U.S. has been regularly shipping convoys of weapons to Fatah security forces in Gaza and the West Bank.

WND reported the U.S. in February transferred 7,000 assault rifles and more than 1 million rounds of ammunition to Fatah militias.

According to Palestinian officials, no U.S. weapons have been transferred since last week's unity government was forged.

The last confirmed American arms shipment to Fatah took place in May. At first, the shipment, consisting of 3,000 rifles, was denied by the U.S. and Israel, but Olmert in June admitted the transfer took place, telling reporters, "I needed to approve the shipment to help bolster Abbas."

Fatah's Abu Yousuf told WND if there is a major conflict with Israel, U.S. weapons provided to Fatah may be shared with other "Palestinian resistance organizations."

"The first place of these U.S. weapons will be to defend the Palestinian national project, which is reflected by the foundation of the Palestinian Authority. If Hamas or any other group under the influence of Iran and Syria wants to make a coup de tat against our institution, these weapons are there to defend the PA," said Abu Yousuf.

"We don't want to go to civil war with Hamas, because this is what both the U.S. and Israel want. This is our last option. We hope our brothers in Hamas won't oblige us to find ourselves in confrontation," Abu Yousuf said.

But the Fatah militant said the new American weapons may also be used to target Israelis. He admitted previous American arms supplied to Fatah were used in "resistance operations" against the Jewish state.

"If Israel will deliver what it promised to Abu Mazen (Abbas), [meaning a] withdrawal from Palestinian lands, including east Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, remove all the checkpoints in the West Bank, release our prisoners and find a clear solution for our refugees, we'll control our forces and the distribution of weapons.

"But if Israel doesn't deliver, and we find ourselves manipulated by Israel, we cannot guarantee members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Force 17 will not use these weapons against Israel. Our goal is to change the occupation," said Abu Yousuf.

"It's unnatural to think these American weapons won't be used against the Israelis," he said.

Like some other Force 17 members, Abu Yousuf is openly also a member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

All Brigades leaders are also members of Fatah. Abbas last June appointed senior Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leader Mahmoud Damra as commander of Force 17. Damra, who was arrested by Israel in November, was on the Jewish state's most-wanted list of terrorists.

Abu Yousuf said the American weapons shipments may be shared with other Palestinian terror groups. He said that during large confrontations with Israel, such as the Jewish state's 2002 anti-terror raid in Jenin, Fatah distributed weapons to Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

"We don't look where this piece or that piece of weapon came from when fighting the Israelis," Abu Yousuf said.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by The Reality Show, March 21, 2007.

When the media will not be anti Israel biased

1) When there is an account of every single Arab Muslim terrorism.

2) When Israeli victims of terror will turn to human from being "tanks" in media's dehumanization.

3) When the (BBC, NPR, etc.) reporter will finally visit an Israeli hospital for a change.

4) When a rare (if/when) abuse by an Israeli soldier won't be overblown any more than any other westerner's case.

5) When those drama words, bigoted slurs (like: "apartheid", "racism") invented by Arabism, Palestinianism upon Israel's war on fascists' terror won't be used.

6) When it will remember to quote the source where it comes from, like a "Palestinian" point of view, stating it as such: "Palestinians" say, not reporting it as "facts", and use "they say" as the media is always so careful to side it only on Israel's view.

7) When the tone won't be inflating the cult of 'Palestinian' victim hood, but reporting dry facts. Or the passion should be used on Israeli victims just as much.

8) No more "Palestinians" are the bigger picture, When the headlines are the repercussion of both sides, not a headline & main news crying on 'Palestinians' and in just small little details something about Israel as well.

9) When it will finally start mentioning the sacrifice democratic Israel is making in gestures to "Palestinian" Arabs & open borders on the expense of it's vital security, asides from it's humanitarian aid.

10) When it will report the racism, treason & danger from Arabs living inside Israel & it's establishment's incitement for Jihad, murder, hatred & terrorism.

11) When it will refrain from calling fear & worry for security as "racism".

12) When it will stop dancing around the real issue of the conflict, the seeds of hate, the 'Palestinian death cult' indoctrination & it's child abuse.

13) When talk will come about on the real racism & real apartheid, such as in "Palestine" ethnic cleansing of Jews, anti Christian apartheid, oppression of own people and on minorities, as well as on the entire Arab & Muslim world that practices such heinous crimes against humanity without any 'fighting terrorism' or 'self defense'.

14) When it will stop it's double standard that any attack on non Muslim infidels at any corner of the world is any different from Arab Muslim 'Palestinian' genocide campaign on non Muslim Israelis (A.K.A as "fascism").

Contact The Reality Show at therealityshow@mail.com.

Visit http://lightonthings.blogspot.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, March 21, 2007.

Jerome Segal has long been one of the most evil Jews alive. Little more than a Tokyo Rose in the service of the PLO. He founded the pro-PLO "Jewish Peace Lobby", which should have better been named the Jewish self-annihilation lobby. He supported Israel turning Jerusalem over to the savages
(http://www.pij.org/current.php?id=45). He supported the Rwanda "bi-national state" solution to remove Israel's existence. He brags that he wrote the "constitution" for the state of "Palestine". he shilled for the Palestinian "right of return"
(http://www.mediamonitors.net/jerome1.html). He scribbles Israel-bashing screeds for the anti-Semitic The Nation

Well, suddenly Segal is having second thoughts? Unfortunately only in Hebrew, the very same pogromchik fella wtites in YNET today (http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3378465,00.html) that there is no international legal basis for promoting a Palestinian "right of return". He suddenly insists that there is no legal basis for it and that it is a stupid and harmful idea, that the only way to settle past scores is through compensation for losses of property.

First Benny Morris partly recants his old anti-Zionism, and now Mister Jewish Intifada?

Anyone spotted the Messiah coming?

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. This appeared today in Arutz-Sheva

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 21, 2007.

This was written by Shmuel Rosner and Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondents and AP

Remember this picture? Palestinian P.M. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) financed the Munich Massacre and participated in the slaughter of countless Israeli & U.S. citizens.

The U.S. intends to continue funding and training Palestinian security forces loyal to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, despite the formation of a unity government with Hamas.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Congress House subcommittee that controls foreign aid that the State Department was close to completing a revised plan regarding the PA, which would take into account the recent political developments.

The formation of the unity government in the PA has complicated the U.S.'s long-term plans for the creation of a Palestinian security force under Abbas that would counterweigh forces under the control of Hamas. Rice said the administration was trying to find ways to support the development of forces loyal to those who accept the principals of the Quartet. She added the funds requested by the administration for aid for the PA would be reduced, due to concerns over how some funds would be spent.

Rice said she would make a new request to Congress outlining in detail how the money would be spent and providing assurances it would not get into the "wrong hands."

"It will request less money, precisely because some of the money that I would have requested I did not think I could fully account for," Rice told a House of Representatives Appropriations subcommittee.

She did not say how much money would be cut from the original request.

"I hope that is a sign for you that we take very seriously our responsibilities," she said. "I have no interest in having to come here one day and say, 'you know this funding did not end up in the right place.' I will do my very best," she told the committee Congress sources told Haaretz Wednesday that under the new circumstances, forces under partial control of Hamas may receive American foreign aid. This would be in violation of the American constitution, as Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization. The American lawmakers froze transfer of all aid funds to the PA several weeks ago, and it is at present unclear if and when it would be renewed.

U.S. Lieutenant-General Keith Dayton, U.S. security coordinator to the PA since 2005, warned Congress last week against Hamas' growing military strength.

If left unchecked, Dayton warned, it would erode Abbas' already limited ability to enforce any cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and increase the chances of Israeli military intervention.

The quartet of Middle East peace negotiators, the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia, said Wednesday that an international aid embargo would remain on the PA until three conditions were met: to recognize Israel, agree to past accords and renounce violence.

"The quartet expressed its expectation that the unity government would support the efforts of President Abbas to pursue a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," said the statement.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 21, 2007.


Lebanese who live near the border with Israel claim that UNIFIL is aggressive against them and protects Israel from Hizbullah. The UNO claims that the Lebanese Army keeps certain border areas are off-limits to UNIFIL, to shelter Hizbullah from UNIFIL (IMRA, 2/25) and from Israel.

Hizbullah is buying land just north of the Litani R., where UNIFIL jurisdiction ends. Apparently they are populating it with Shiites, who would let it build new fortifications there, in anticipation of the coming war (IMRA, 2/26).

I believe the UNO. The Muslim Arabs usually get the story wrong, because they follow biased instincts rather than respect facts, and they utter propaganda more than realistic assessments.


A Kuwaiti newspaper reported that three Gulf states offered Israel permission to fly over their countries in an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities (IMRA, 2/25). Qatar said it would deny the use of its country in such an attack (IMRA, 3/15).


The US limits military force, has lawyers make sure, apologizes when hurting civilians, prosecutes its soldiers if they humiliate prisoners, accepts journalistic escorts to monitor the troops, lets the enemy broadcast beheadings of captured Americans without closing the station, and calls countries that assist enemies to develop nuclear energy "friends." We may freeze some enemy assets used to finance the war, but do not strike their capitals. We pretend that our war is only with "extremists who have hijacked a great religion."

While complaining of anti-Muslim prejudice (which hardly manifests itself in the politically correct US), totalitarian Muslims teach that Jews are sons of pigs and all civilians in Israel and Western countries may be attacked. Iranians build "bridges of understanding" here but nuclear bombs there (Mid East Forum).


Russia supports the Palestinian Arabs, Syria, and Iran. It is recognizing the Hamas government, sending thousands of anti-tank missiles to Syria, and thwarting sanctions against Iran (Arutz-7, 2/27).

Dr. Aaron Lerner warned of policies based on Syria's current weaknes.


The Druse farmers on the Golan are residents of Israel but citizens of Syria, with which they identify. They grow apples. Syria wants to buy their apples to show support for "Syrian farmers in the Israeli occupied Golan".

Israel's Minister of Agriculture asked the Finance Ministry for a subsidy to lower the price of those apples. Request granted (IMRA, 2/3).

Thus Israel subsidizes enemy propaganda and enemy farmers. Wouldn't the apples have been sold without the subsidy?


Members of the Arab League pledged $150 million to sustain the peacekeepers in Darfur. They contributed only $15, however. Meanwhile, the crisis gets worse, as more countries get dragged into it and the rebels fracture into multiple gangs, leaving no one with whom to make peace (IMRA, 2/24).

Pledges are made when in the spotlight. Later, the Muslims renege.


An Israeli three-year old was lost in the Old City of Hebron. An Arab general found him and returned him to the Israelis (IMRA, 2/24).


Everybody knows that Defense Min. Peretz is not competent. They make fun of him, as when he was caught posing as an inspector of battlefields looking through covered binoculars.

Haaretz' Gideon Levy admits the incompetence but notes that other politicians have not been ridiculed for their failures. He concludes that the ridicule really is for Levy's being Moroccan rather than Ashkenazi.

Dr. Aaron Lerner worries that if Peretz was too embarrassed to admit he did not know how to work the binoculars, he have may been too embarrassed to get help with more important matters (IMRA, 2/24).

When Pres. Katsav, from Likud, accused his critics of similar ethnic prejudice, Levy ridiculed him as paranoid. Why the different standard? (Arutz-7, 2/25).

Levy gave no evidence for his serious charge about Peretz, known for stupidity.

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@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Yisrael Medad, March 21, 2007.

This appeared in the Jerusalem Post today. It is archived at
http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2007/03/ raping-as-resistance-my-latest-op-ed.html

A good friend of mine, Edva Naveh of Sha'arei Tikva in Samaria, made an interesting observation recently concerning the gang of Beduin youths who, according to their indictment, committed a series of rapes in the Galilee area. She was struck by reports in the Hebrew media -- YNET, for instance -- saying that the rapes were perpetrated as a form of nationalist vengeance against IDF operations in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

The Post headlined its March 1 report: "Police make new arrests in 'terrorist rape' case."

Now if it's true that these were "terrorist rapes," Edva wondered why feminist organizations in Israel which devote themselves to combating rape, harassment and trafficking in women appear to have ignored the entire matter.

These organizations also deal with sexual abuse, pay-scale disparities and other economic and social issues. Many have been active in protesting President Moshe Katsav's continued tenure, despite the fact that he's not been formerly charged. Haim Ramon's kissing episode also deeply disturbed the feminists -- not to mention the rest of us.

HOWEVER, Edva asked, why hasn't the feminist community addressed -- or at the very least investigated -- the matter of Jewish women allegedly being raped out of nationalist motivation?

Millionaire Ofer Glazer and MK Yoram Marciano have been pilloried by them for reported sexual improprieties. Actor Rami Heuberger is being criticized. But the behavior of the young residents of Galilee has been largely ignored by the feminists.

Where are the feminist voices of MKs Ruhama Avraham and Zahava Gal-On? Surely it can't be that "rape as resistance" is judged as being less of a crime than the standard criminal variety?

What about humanitarian groups here and abroad which define themselves as liberal, left or progressive? They've been rightly vociferous in condemning rape used in the course of war, as in Bosnia, Rwanda, the Congo and Darfur. Why the apparent silence in this instance?

Sociologists suggest that rapes carried out against the background of political violence are intended to show the affected men that they cannot even defend their women; that they are worthless. The tactic is used to fragment societies.

HISTORIANS TELL us that during the American Civil War, in April 1863, Francis Lieber, a Columbia College professor, wrote instructions (promulgated by president Abraham Lincoln) in the code of military conduct. Article 44 stipulates: "All wanton violence committed... all rape... of such [civilian] inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death."

Both Edva Naveh and I wonder whether Gal-On, Shulamit Aloni, Avraham and Shelly Yacimovich would support a similarly severe form of punishment for these young men, were they found guilty?

Meanwhile, won't they, at the very least, speak out on the issue and stop ignoring it? Why the double standard? Why ignore a behavior pattern that is surely criminal and, if the reports prove accurate -- and the defendants' words and actions shown on the news broadcasts seem to confirm police suspicions -- would be an offshoot of the terror campaign that Arabs have practiced against Jews for over 80 years in the land?

LET US consider some possibilities that explain the feminists' silence:

They are not convinced that the assertions are true. After all, the trial hasn't begun and the accused are innocent until proven otherwise.

On the other hand, no one has seen any solid evidence against Moshe Katsav, and yet demonstrations have been conducted outside his residence and demands made for his ouster.

Feminists might see protesting as inherently prejudicial given the low socioeconomic status of the Beduin accused.

But since when is socioeconomic status an excuse for feminist silence? Haredim (like those who live across the Green Line) don't seem to get a feminist pass because of their lack of social and economic wherewithal.

Maybe feminists do accept that the "occupation" -- as they call it -- was a contributing factor. Which gets us back to: Is sexual violence less of a crime even if, using the prevailing "progressive" feminist worldview, the rapes were impelled by an immoral, oppressive situation and carried out by a deprived population?

What seems to be at work here is an aberrant form of Israeli post-feminism: a sick twist on the "she asked for it" excuse -- not because of being provocatively dressed, but because of the provocation of being a Jewess and representing the larger -- "oppressive" -- state.

LEFT-WINGERS have for years been promoting the theory that violence in Israeli society, and especially violence directed at women, is somehow connected with the IDF service of their husbands and boyfriends. The theory's proponents assume that the soldiers are either frustrated, or have become numbed by the force they must use against the civilian Arab population in the disputed territories. This pent-up anger is eventually released, the argument goes, at home against children, mothers and girlfriends.

This post-Zionist outlook has insinuated itself inside the feminist mindset. And when you mix radical feminism with an ultra-left view of the Arab-Israel conflict, I'm not surprised that the feminists are immobilized by reports that the Galilee rapes might have been motivated by an Arab animus toward Jews.

Whatever the reason for the silence of Israel's women's movement, it is a blemish on those parts of its ideology that mainstream Israel embraces, not to mention immoral from a Zionist standpoint.

It is still not too late for women's groups to raise their voices on behalf of rape victims of the Galilee. Let them do so.

Yisrael Medad lives in Shiloh. Contact him at yisrael.medad@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, March 21, 2007.

This letter was sent to the Australia Jewish News newspaper.

It could be said that the fact that 128 Jews have been able to create yet another Jewish organization dedicated to criticizing Israel is a tribute to the triumph of democracy in Australia.

I have been publishing an Internet editorial for over five years, covering the Arab-Israel conflict from a Jewish national prospective and promoting the ideas of the original Zionists. Throughout all of this time, not one of my many critics has been able to name even one Muslim/Arab organization which would openly and completely support Israel's right to exist. Not one, anywhere in the world!

I have been trying, with little success, to form a Jewish group in support of true Zionism in Australia but anti-Israel organizations, driven predominately by Jews, are popping up like mushrooms. It is amazing how many Jews seem to be willing to provide moral support to the enemies of the State of Israel in particular and the Western world in general.

Why should this democratic right of freedom of expression only be limited to the right to criticize Israel? Why is Israel blamed for the problems that were created by Arab/Muslim countries with the enthusiastic assistance of a hypocritical International community? Why are most Jews, who are living in democratic countries, still scared, and unable to proudly and openly support the Jewish national liberation movement -- Zionism?

Quote of the Week:

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy." -- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971.

PA Platform a Declaration of War. The PA new platform claims that acts of terror against Israel are a "legitimate right," and says that violence will continue. Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman said that the goal of the new PA leadership is clearly the destruction of Israel. (Our enemies still retain the same goal as 58 years ago. It is time for Israel to return to her original Zionist aspirations! Negotiation with, and appeasement of the enemy does not work, specially for Jews.)

Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement. For the last 3 years, he has been publishing internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict -- independently, not as a member of any organization or political movement. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Zalmi, March 21, 2007.

The failure of all Israel's peace initiatives from Oslo to Gaza -- along with all the Jewish lives lost or shattered in the wake of these concessions -- can be blamed on one central fallacy.

That is the expectation that -- given the right conditions -- the Arabs can become good neighbours, civilised people just like us -- committed to peaceful coexistence in the interest of promoting education, welfare and employment as free people.

It's based on this expectation that the Americans and Europeans have lavished huge grants on Arafat and Abbas. And what the world has given in cash, Israel has given in land and trust -- by withdrawing from Lebanon and Gaza, and closing checkpoints all over the country even as bomb belts were still being intercepted. Perhaps the most dangerous concession has been to give up the Philadelphi corridor by which control of arms smuggling into newly liberated Gaza has been entrusted to Egypt in what was supposed to be a demilitarised Sinai.

But the undeniable truth is that the Arabs are not like us and never will be like us. The unchanged living standards of the average Gazan family prove beyond doubt that virtually all the financial aid has been siphoned off in fraud or diverted to terror organisations. The concessions of Oslo were repaid with the indiscriminate bombing of our civilians in a merciless intifada. Instead of building homes and schools in liberated South Lebanon, the Arabs built bunkers and missile silos. And in Gaza they replaced our lush farmlands with Kassam missile sites and turned our irrigation channels into new smuggling tunnels through which they captured Gilad Shalit.

Wishful-thinking American Jewish philanthropists stomped-up $14,000,000 to save the Gush Katif greenhouses and keep the 3,500 Arab employees in their productive jobs. But Hamas had other plans and the greenhouses were quickly destroyed and looted. It utterly sickens me to think how quickly that money was raised -- and wasted -- by American Jews and what miracles could have been performed in the poorest suburbs of Israel with those fourteen million dollars.

So what prompts me to pen these lines today?

As usual, it's a news report.

This time it's a statement by Avigdor Lieberman, the ultra-right winger who wants Arabs moved to the other side of the fence etc etc.

It would be hard to think of a more unlikely member of Olmert's supposedly left-of-center coalition. But this was never about principles or beliefs. It had more to do with personal needs; Olmert needed to stay in power at all costs and Lieberman clearly loves the limelight and perks of office.

Lieberman has been irritated since the appointment of Ghaleb Majadle as the very first Arab minister to serve in the government of Israel. He was put in charge of Science, Culture, and Sports. (However barmy this may seem, one must not forget Kadima's appointment of another Arab to the Knesset Defense and Foreign Affairs committee!).

Anyway, today's news story is about Lieberman protesting that Majadle will not sing the Hatikva. Apparently he does stand up for it but doesn't sing it. Perhaps he can't pronounce the words. Perhaps he might even choke on them. Be that as it may, it just seemed to me like some sort of black comedy.

Here is a nation which has paid an incredible price in death and misery on the totally bankrupt notion that Arabs can someday be like us. And someone like Lieberman -- whose right wing beliefs must have discredited that notion a thousand times over -- expects our first Arab minister to sing the Hatikva like a kibbutznik !

Whether it is in concessions, humanitarian aid or just by filling up our fuel tanks every week, the undeniable truth is that whatever we and the rest of the world have given to the Arabs they have always repaid in spades.

Spades to bury our dead.

In Israel, New York, Washington, Madrid, London, Bali, Buenos Aires, Nairobi, Aden ... the list goes on.

Contact Zalmi by email at zalmi@zalmi.net or visit his website: www.zalmi.net

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 21, 2007.

Saree Makdisi's "In the war of words, The Times is Israel's ally" (LA Times, 3/11/07) makes an amazing number of factual errors and lapses of logic and rational thought. But most amazing is Makdisi's mis-perception of the issue: "right to exist."

The reality of world history is that no country in the world exists today by virtue of its 'right'. All countries exist today by virtue of their ability to defend themselves against those who seek their destruction.

Take Tibet, for example, and Israel for the opposite example.

Tibet did nothing to threaten or anger China. No aggression, no threat of aggression. But in 1950, China invaded Tibet and ended Tibet's existence as a nation. As with all nations, Tibet had no right to exist. It existed only as long as it was not attacked. When it was attacked and could not defend itself adequately, nor garner support for its continued existence from the world's family of nations, it ceased to exist.

The same would be true of Israel, except that Israel has defended itself adequately. Israel's continued existence is not by right, but only by its ability to defend itself against the Arab and Moslem world that seeks her destruction. And if it were ever unable to defend itself, it would soon share Tibet's fate...or worse.

Nations exist because they can defend themselves from those who want to destroy them. Therefore, the question itself, "what right does Israel have to exist?" is a bogus question, misleading in its intention.

No country ever came into existence by virtue of any right, except one.

All nations throughout the world and across history came into existence by virtue of their ability to conquer some other indigenous inhabitants. Violence, murder, war, rapine, conquest, massacres, burning, looting, pillaging, and sometimes even genocide: those are the costs of nation creation in the real world, throughout all of history.

The only known exception to this gallery of historical horrors is the modern state of Israel. Israel came into existence by virtue of:

a. its ability to buy land with the help of world-wide Jewish and Christian Zionists.

b. its ability to reclaim deteriorated waste land.

c. its ability to organize itself in its pre-state existence into a viable well-governed cohesive society with a developing and expanding economy and an effective defensive force.

d. the world governing body's decision to vote it, and an Arab state, into existence.

e. its ability to defend itself when invaded by 7 Arab armies with genocidal intent.

In sharp contradistinction to the manner in which all other nations have been created, the ineluctable historical fact is that Israel came into existence by legal, peaceful, constructive processes. Despite this fact, Israel is the one and only country whose right to exist is challenged.

Q. So why pick on Israel?

A. Because the question has nothing to do with an inquiry into Israel's rights or lack thereof. The question is simply a mechanism for the launching of an anti-Israel diatribe. Its real purpose is to open an avenue of propaganda attack, to bash Israel, de-legitimize her, denigrate her; and ultimately to justify the Arab world's desire to destroy her.

In the absence of any inquiry into the right of infinitely more reprehensible societies -- Russia, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, Mauritania, Sudan, inter alia -- why condemn Israel as a rogue state with no right to exist? Why not start with the worst offenders?

Why de-legitimize Israel for its victory in a defensive war that was far less destructive than the religious imperialist Jihad of the Arab states whose invasions in the 7th to 9th centuries racked up tens, if not hundreds, of millions of casualties and destroyed four ancient civilizations (Byzantine, Coptic, Sassanian, and Berber)?

Why not start with the most horrific of conquerors?

Because the purpose of the question is to attack Israel and justify those who attack Israel!

The bottom line is that if you think Israel has no right to exist, you are right. And I'm sure that Hitler would agree with you wholeheartedly.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 21, 2007.

This comes from Silas's website: http://www.answering-islam.org/archives/oldindex.html. You can reach him via email at silas333@hotmail.com. This article is archived at http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm


Islam institutionalized slavery. Muhammad began to take slaves after he moved to Medina, and had power. Slaves were usually taken in raids on nearby Arab tribes, or war, either through offensive or defensive actions. Islam allows the taking of slaves as "booty", or reward for fighting. This has led to numerous "jihads" by Muslim states and tribes to attack other non-Muslim groups and obtain slaves. Islamic jurisprudence laid down regulations for the proper treatment of slaves. However, abuses have occurred throughout history.


The West is familiar with the history of slavery in the new world. It was sinful and terrible, and it lasted for several hundred years. And it was abolished mainly through the efforts of Christians in England (Wilberforce, Clarkson) and America (the Abolitionists, primarily Protestant).

However, few people in the west know about Islam and slavery. Most would be surprised that Islam authorizes the taking of slaves as spoils of war. From the days that Muhammad drew his sword to rob and conquer non-Muslims to this very day, Muslims have been taking non-Muslims, and even other black Muslims, as slaves.

Muslims were enslaving black Africans long before any slave ships sailed for the New World. Muslims were taking and making slaves all over the lands they had conquered. Later, when slave ships were loaded with black slaves, often, a Muslim slave broker had the human cargo all ready to go. American slavers rarely had to go into inland to capture slaves, they were already waiting there, courtesy of some Muslim ruler, and/or slave broker! In many cases, if the black slaves were not sent to the New World, they were sent to the Mideast to be enslaved by Arabs, or kept by other black Muslims as slaves.


To begin with, the Quran justifies slavery, and often mentions slaves. Here are some relevant verses:

33:50 -- "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."

This verse clearly shows that Muslims believe that taking slaves in war was a God-given right. These slaves were considered 'booty' or the spoils of war. As the saying goes: to the victors go the spoils.

23:5 -- "... except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them:..."

The passage's context here (not quoted in full) details how Muslim males are allowed to have sexual relations with their wives and slave girls. Implicit in this is that Muslim males had slave-concubines. 70:30 is basically a repeat of 23:5.

Ibn Sa'd's "Tabaqat", gives a clear description of Muhammad having "relations" with at least one of his slave girls. Muhammad had sexual relations with Mariyah, his Coptic slave. Mariyah and her sister, Sirin were slaves given as gifts to Muhammad. Muhammad gave Sirin to Hasan Thabit, the poet. Ibn Sa'd says that Muhammad "liked Mariyah, who was of white complexion, with curly hair and pretty." [Taken from Ibn Sa'd's "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir" (Book of the Major Classes), p151].

Ibn Sa'd also writes that Mariyah bore Muhammad a son named Ibrahim. He died 18 months later. Sa'd writes: "If he had lived, no maternal uncle of his would have remained in bondage", p164. This shows that there were other Coptic slaves owned by the Muslims.

The Quran also instructs Muslims NOT to force their female slaves into prostitution (24:34), and even allows Muslims to marry slaves if they so desire (4:24), and to free them at times as a penalty for crime or sin (4:92, 5:89, 58:3) and even allows slaves to buy their liberty, if they meet certain of their master's conditions (24:33). [90:10 'freeing of a bondsman' refers to Muslims ransoming other Muslims who were slaves of non-Muslims.]

While I think it's nice to allow a slave to obtain his freedom, (at his master's discretion) it is tragic that Islam allows them to be enslaved in the first place. That's like robbing a bank and giving some of the money back to the bank, and thinking you did the right thing!

The above verses show that taking slaves was ordained by Allah, and that it was permissible for Muslim males to have sex with their female slaves. It also shows that slaves were a valuable commodity to the Muslims, otherwise, Allah would not have imposed the penalty of freeing a slave to make up for a crime.


There are hundreds of Hadith that deal with slavery. Whole chapters of Hadith are dedicated to dealing with the taxation, treatment, sale, and jurisprudence of slaves. In addition to this, numerous Hadith mention slaves, and their relation to their Muslim masters. Here is a selection of Hadith on slaves: [all Hadith are from Sahih Bukhari, unless noted.]

Vol. 7-#137 Narrated Abu al-Khudri: "We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's messenger about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

Here, Muslims had taken female slaves, and had sex with them. Muhammad approved of this. He only admonished them not to practice coitus interruptus.

Vol. 5-#459 [This Hadith is similar to the above. However, additional details are added]. Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: "I entered the mosque and saw Abu Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu said, "We went out with Allah's messenger for the Ghazwa (attack upon) Banu Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus we said "How can we do coitus interruptus without asking Allah's messenger while he is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said "It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."

Here, the Muslims attacked the Banu Mustaliq, and took slaves. The female slaves were distributed as booty to the Muslim soldiers. Being away from home, the soldiers became horny, and want to have sexual relations with the newly captured female slaves. They went to Muhammad and asked about coitus interruptus. He told them not to practice that, but to complete the sexual act with the slaves. Related Hadith show that they didn't want to get the women pregnant because they wanted to be able to sell them later on. Under Islamic law they were not allowed to sell pregnant female slaves.

In effect, Muhammad okayed the rape of female prisoners.

Vol. 3-#765

Narrated Kuraib: the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "Do you know, O Allah's Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?" He said, "Have you really?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles."

Here a woman frees a slave girl, but Muhammad says that she would have gotten more (heavenly) reward if she had given the slave one of her uncles, thus keeping the slave in slavery.

Vol. 7-#734 "...At the door of the [Muhammad's] room there was a slave to whom I went and said, "Ask the permission for me to enter"...

This is a long Hadith, and the quote reveals that Muhammad has slaves working in his house.

Vol. 7-#344 Narrated Anas: "Allah's messenger went to the house of his slave tailor, and he was offered a dish of gourd of which he started eating. I have loved to eat gourd since I saw Allah's messenger eating it."

This Hadith shows that another one of Muhammad's slaves was a tailor. #346 gives additional details.

Vol. 5-#541 Narrated Abu Huraira: When we conquered Khaibar, we gained neither gold nor silver as booty, but we gained cows, camels, goods and gardens. Then we departed with Allah's apostle to the valley of Al-Qira, and at that time Allah's messenger had a slave called Midam who had been presented to him by one of Banu Ad-Dibbab. While the slave was dismounting the saddle of Allah's messenger an arrow the thrower of which was unknown, came and hit him...

This Hadith shows that Muhammad held a slave, who was struck with an arrow.

Vol. 5-#637 Narrated Buraida: The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus ([one fifth] of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes" He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus."

The note for this Hadith says "Buraida hated Ali because he had taken a slave girl form the booty and considered that as something not good."

Here Ali took a newly captured slave girl, and had sex with her. When Muhammad was told about it, he approved of it. Note that slaves were considered as booty, and as a man's property, they can use the female slave for sex, i.e., rape them.

Vol. 5-#512 Narrated Anas: "...The prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives..."

This Hadith details the attack on the Jews of Khaibar. Again, many of the women and children were taken and made into slaves.

Vol. 5-Chapter 67 Narrated Ibn Ishaq: The Ghazwa (attack upon) Uyaina bin Hisn waged against Banu Al-Anbar, a branch of Banu Tamim. The prophet sent Uyaina to raid them. He raided them and killed some of them and took some others as captives.

Here, Muhammad sent out his men to attack another tribe. The killed some of them and took others as captives. Once again, the Muslims attacked a neighboring tribe.

Vol. 5-#182 Narrated Aisha: "Abu Bakr had a slave who used to give him some of his earnings.

Vol. 5-#50 Narrated Amr Maimun: "...The slave of Al-Mughira..." ...Al-Abbas had the greatest number of slaves...
[Al-Abbas, the future Muslim leader had many slaves].

Vol. 9-#462 Narrated Aisha: "...Furthermore you may ask the slave girl who will tell you the truth". So the prophet asked Barira (my slave girl)...

Aisha had her own slave.

Also, volume 7-#s 845, 341, 352, 371, 410, 413, 654, ch. 22, ch. 23, and
volume 1-#s 29, 439, 661,
volume 9-#s ch. 23, ch. 32, #293, 296, 277, 100, 80.

All these Hadith detail that many other Muslims owned slaves.


Abu Dawud, vol. 2, chapter 597 -- "On a Man who Beats His Slave While he is in the Sacred State (wearing Ihram)."

#1814- "(Abu Bakr) began to beat him (Bakr's slave) while the apostle of Allah was smiling and saying: "Look at this man who is in the sacred state, what is he doing?" [The note for this Hadith says "Abu Bakr beat his slave to teach him sense of responsibility."]

Abu Dawud, vol. 2, chapter 683 -- "On the Marriage of a Slave without the Permission of His Masters"

#2074- "Ibn Umar reported the prophet as saying: "If a slave marries without the permission of his master, his marriage is null and void."

Abu Dawud, vol. 2, chapter 1317 -- "Contractual Obligation of a Slave."

#3499, 3500 -- "The contractual obligation of a slave is three days. If he finds defect in the slave within three days, he may return it without any evidence; if he finds a defect after three days, he will be required to produce evidence that the slave had the defect when he brought it."


The chapters mentioned below show just how intrinsic slavery was during Muhammad's life, and the lives of the Caliphs. The Muwatta is a book of Islamic jurisprudence. It is full of regulations on dealing with slaves. Slaves were used throughout the Islamic world. Judging from the amount of Hadith here, it is safe to assume that many Muslims owned slaves.

Chapter 368 -- "Who takes the Property of a Slave When He is Freed"

Chapter 371 -- "Slaves who cannot be set Free in the Obligatory Freeing of a Slave"

Chapter 383 -- "Cohabitation with a Slave Girl after Declaring Her 'Mudabbir'" (free after the master's death).

Chapter 387 -- "Who is Entitled to the Property of a Slave or Slave Girl at the time of Sale."

Chapter 388 -- "The Limit of Responsibility of the Seller in the Sale of a Slave or Slave Girl."

Chapter 390 -- "On the Conditional Sale of a Slave Girl."

There are additional chapters dealing with slaves. This list is enough to show that dealing with slaves during and after Muhammad's time was extensive.


There are additional Islamic writings that document how Muhammad took purchased, sold, and gave away slaves. The following quotes are from "Behind the Veil".

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, a great scholar and Islamic historian says in his book "Zad al-Ma'ad", part 1, p160:

"Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased more slaves then he sold. He once sold one black slave for two. His purchases of slaves were more than he sold."

"Muhammad had a number of black slaves. One of them was named 'Mahran'. Muhammad forced him to do more labor than the average man. Whenever Muhammad went on a trip and he, or his people, got tired of carrying their stuff, he made Mahran carry it. Mahran said "Even if I were already carrying the load of 6 or 7 donkeys while we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw his clothes or his shield or his sword on me so I would carry that, a heavy load". Tabari and Jawziyya both record this, so Islam accepts this as true."

Ali, who was Muhammad's son-in-law, whipped Aisha's slave in front of Muhammad to make her talk about the adultery charges against Aisha. Muhammad did not say a word to Ali about beating the female slave. [From the Sirat Rasulallah, p496.]

In the Sirat Rasulallah, Muhammad massacred 800 males and took their women and children as slaves. He kept at least one Jewish female named Rayhana as his concubine, and gave the rest away to the Muslims. The Sirat says (p466) "Then the apostle divided the property, wives, and children of Banu Qurayza among the Muslims...


"Then the apostle sent Sa'd Zayd brother of Ashhal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horse and weapons."

One thing for certain: MUHAMMAD WAS A SLAVER. The names of many of Muhammad's slaves are detailed in Muslim writings and they can be found in "Behind the Veil".

Some Muslims claim that slaves under Islam were always treated fairly and kindly, and that slaves in the West were always treated like "chattel". The fact is that the real treatment slaves in both the west and under Islam has varied. Some slaves were treated fairly, others were treated brutally. Both the Quran and New Testament command masters to treat slaves fairly. Compare Ephesians 6:9 with Sura 4:36. Both are similar. However, the New Testament condemns slave trading in 1 Tim 1:10 (menstealers is the same word for slave-traders), the Quran allows for, even urges slave-taking.


According to the Hughes Dictionary of Islam, slaves had few civil or legal rights. For example:

a) Muslim men were allowed to have sex anytime with females slaves -- Sura 4:3, 4:29, 33:49.

b) Slaves are as helpless before their masters as idols are before God -- Sura 16:77

c) According to Islamic Tradition, people at the time of their capture were either to be killed, or enslaved. Shows you that they were at the bottom of the barrel to start with.

d) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves were merchandise. The sales of slaves was in accordance with the sale of animals.

e) Muhammad ordered that some slaves who were freed by their master be RE-ENSLAVED!

f) It is permissible under Islamic law to whip slaves.

g) According to Islam, a Muslim could not be put to death for murdering a slave. Ref. 2:178 and the Jalalayn confirm this.

h) According to Islam, the testimony of slaves is not admissible in court. Ibn Timiyya and Bukhari state this.

i) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves cannot choose their own marriage mate. -- Ibn Hazm, vol. 6, part 9.

j) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves can be forced to marry who their masters want. -- Malik ibn Anas, vol. 2, page 155.

Slavery continued in Islamic lands from about the beginning to this very day. Muslim rulers always found support in the Quran to call 'jihad', partly for booty, part for the purpose of taking slaves. As the Islamic empire disintegrated into smaller kingdoms, and each ruler was able to decide what Islam's theology really meant. Usually, he always found it in support of what he wanted to do. Their calls of jihad against their neighbor facilitated the taking of slaves for Islam. The Quran and Islamic jurisprudence support the taking of slaves, so, those petty Muslim rulers were following the Quran when they needed slaves.


1) Islam allows Muslims to make slaves out of anyone who is captured during war.

2) Islam allows for the children of slaves to be raised as slaves

3) Like #1, Islam allows for Christians and Jews to be made into slaves if they are captured in war. After Muslim armies attacked and conquered Spain, they took thousands of slaves back to Damascus. The key prize was 1000 virgins as slaves. They were forced to go all the way back to Damascus.

4) Christians and Jews, who had made a treaty with the ruling Muslims could be made into slaves if they did not pay the "protection" tax. This paying for 'protection' was just like paying a Mafia racketeer! This allowed Muslim rulers to extort money from non-Muslim people.



Although Muslims took slaves from all over the lands they conquered, many of the Muslim slaves were black Africans. There were forced to do the harshest labor.

There was a famous black slave revolt in Iraq where thousands of black slaves revolted and killed tens of thousands of Arabs in Basrah. There slaves were forced to work in the large Muslim saltpeter mines. During their revolt, they conquered the city of Basrah, in Iraq. They conquered city after city, and they couldn't be stopped. Their uprising and drive for freedom lasted for about 11 years. ["The History of Islam", Robert Payne, p.185.]

As the Muslim armies continued to conquer land, they acquired many slaves. Bernard Lewis in "The Arabs in History" writes: "polytheists and idolaters were seen primarily as sources of slaves."

In the early years of the Arab conquests, vast numbers of slave were acquired by capture. C.E. Bosworth in "The Islamic Dynasties" writes: "the use of this labor enabled the Arabs to live on the conquered land as a rentier class and to exploit some of the economic potential of the rich Fertile Crescent."

Ibn Warraq writes: "Arabs were deeply involved in the vast network of slave trading -- they scoured the slave markets of China, India, and Southeast Asia. There were Turkish slaves from Central Asia, slaves from the Byzantine Empire, white slave from Central and East Europe, and Black slaves from West and East Africa. Every city in the Islamic world had its slave market."


Muhammad did say that slaves should be treated fairly. But they were still a Muslim's property. Just as abuses occurred under Christianity, so too, many abuses occurred, and still occur under Islam. The difference between the two is that Islam ordains the taking of slaves during war, thus perpetuating slavery. Christianity does not. In slavery's perpetual existence, Islam has seen great abuses of slaves.

Everyone knows about the abuses of slaves in the new world. What do you know about the abuses of slaves under Islam? I found two very good books on slavery and Islam.

1) "Slavery and Muslim Society in Africa", by Allan Fisher, pub in 1971, and

2) "The Slave Trade Today" by Sean O'Callaghan, pub in 1961.

Both books really opened my eyes to how terrible slavery under Islam really is. I use the present tense, because it is obvious that these abuses continue to this day.

I also have a number of other references concerning slavery in Islam. A general survey is Hughes Dictionary of Islam. It notes a few basic points:

a) Slaves have no civil liberty, but are entirely under the authority of their owners.

b) Slavery is in complete harmony with the spirit of Islam. Islam did make life better for the average slave, but Muhammad intended it to be a perpetual institution.

c) Hughes also says that it is a righteous act to free a slave. I just find it hard to understand that the god who told Muhammad to take slaves later tells him it's good to free slaves?

In 'The Slave Trade Today', Sean O'Callaghan toured the Mideast and Africa and covertly visited many slave markets. Since Islam allows for slavery and slave trading, he was able to see much of the real world of Islamic slavery. Remember O'Callaghan saw this less than 40 years ago. This probably still continues today, albeit more discreetly.

In Djibouti he writes:

"Ten boys were ranged in a circle on the dais (used to display the slaves), their buttocks toward us. They were all naked, and I saw with horror that five had been castrated. The (slave dealer) said that usually 10% of the boys are castrated, being purchased by Saudi homosexuals, or by Yemenis, who own harems, as guards." p 75

"Why had the girls (female slaves who had just been sold) had accepted their fate without a murmur, the boys howled and cried?" "Simple" said the Somali, we tell the girls from a very early age -- 7 or 8 that they are made for love, at age NINE we let them practice with each other, and a year later with the boys".

In Aden he writes:

"The Yemeni told me that the girls (slave girls used as prostitutes) were encouraged to have children, especially by white men. For if a slave girl had a white child, she was given a bonus of 20 pounds when the child was taken from her". As you can see, the child of a slave remained a slave, the owner could sell the child and make money. This sale is allowable under Islamic law.

"Only one offense was severely punished; attempting to escape from the harem... The wretched girl was stripped and spread eagle in the courtyard...punishment was administer by a eunuch, a huge powerful Negro who seemed to enjoy his task. 70 lashes were given."

"Because of this (the fact that eunuchs can perform sexually), the eunuch often has his penis removed as well as his testicles"! This is also legal under Islamic law, since it is preparing the slave for service.

In Saudi Arabia he writes:

'The slave population was estimated at 450,000"!. ...Slave auctions are no longer held regularly, only in an alley in Mecca."

'I was awakened by shouts and screams coming from the courtyard. Rushing to the window I looked down to see a dozen slaves being herded through a door at the far end of the yard. They were being driven in like cattle by three hefty guards armed with long lashed whips. Even as I watched, one of the poor wretches, a Sudanese girl with huge breasts, received a savage lash across her naked buttocks let out a shriek of agony'

'As the next slave was led in, a murmur of excitement went up among the buyers and they crowded closer around the rostrum. He was a slender boy of about 12 years old with beautiful classical Arab features. Although much has been written about Arab brotherhood and solidarity, I knew that the Arab has no compunction in enslaving his fellows should they fall into his hands.

The boy was naked and tried to cover his privates with his little hands and he ran up the steps of the rostrum...there is an age old saying among the Bedouin: "A goat for use, a girl for enjoyment, but a boy for ecstasy". He (the now purchased slave boy) was claimed by a tall bearded Arab who led him from the rostrum with an arm around his waist".

This is just a portion of what O'Callaghan saw. This happens because Islam has made it legal for slavery. Yes, some of this is against Islam, but because Islam has made it into an institution, abuses will occur.

Remember, this happened just 35 years ago or so, and it is probably still happening today.

It is also noted that as the slaves get too old to perform service or sexually satisfy their masters, their masters 'manumits' the slaves. Now, aged, worn out, they are put out on the streets to fend for themselves. These ex-slaves are left to fend for themselves. Their former owner has committed a great, righteousness act in freeing a slave! He gets rid of the burdensome slave, and gets a bonus in heaven. What a religion!

In Fisher's book, other observations are recorded:

In Mecca:

"We take note of 20 tall Negroes in turbans walking near the Kaba. They are eunuch slaves and are employed as police in the great Mosque. There are about 50 of them all together."

"The streets are full of slaves... we see a few old slave women. They are recognized by the poverty of clothing... but we see nothing of the younger women slaves who are kept in the houses of the city."

"As we move along we see two or three very old men and women who look like black skeletons. If we go to the mosque at sunrise we shall see some of these, if we go at sunset they will be there too, and if we pass by at midnight, we shall see them there still ... Sleeping on the stones in their rags. They have no home but the mosque, and no food but what they receive in alms; (they were) turned out to seek the bounty of Allah, as their masters would say."

Speaking of how Saudi obtains so many black slaves: "they (the slave traders) pose as Muslim missionaries who guide their compatriots (black African Muslims), to the Holy Places of Islam, to make the Pilgrimage, and be instructed in the Quran in Arabic." Once transported, they are made into slaves.

"So with the connivance of the Saudi authorities the ancient trade in black ivory is perpetuated in our time in spite of the international conventions".

Fisher also notes that white slaves are most highly prized.

Another interesting comment I've come across is that there were regions in black Africa that Muslim missionaries wouldn't go into. The reason is that if those blacks became Muslim, they could no longer enslave them. So, the Muslims banned spreading the word of Islam among certain black tribes. It was from these tribes that local Muslim rulers would harvest slaves, and sell them throughout the Islamic world.

Time and time again, slavery in Islam is abused. The west has finished with slavery, Islam continues it, and with that, the abuses go on.

A recent article on the slavery in Sudan is found in Newsweek, Oct. 12, 1992. Since that time, there have been numerous articles written by every form of press on Islamic slavery in Sudan. Basically, southern Sudanese, who are not Muslim, are attacked, and rounded up, and sold into slavery. Anyone willing to do a search at a library could find these articles quite easily.

Lastly, I remember watching a Tony Brown's Journal show. It covered the slavery existing in Muslim lands today, the torture of slaves, the hobbling by breaking the young boys ankles, the seizure of Negro lands by Arabs, etc. Anyone is able to call the show and order this tape. A Negro Muslim from Mauritania was on the show. He described what the Arabs in Mauritania were doing to the Negroes (all Muslim) there. Recent human rights publications have also stated that the same is happening in Mali. Arab Muslims are forcibly taking land, and enslaving Negro Muslims there.

Just a short while ago, a group of Negro pastors in the US, formed a group to combat Islamic slavery amongst the blacks, both Muslim and non-Muslim in Africa. The information on this can be found in the August 1997 issue of Charisma magazine, and in the 11-17-97 issue of Christianity. The group is called "Harambee" and is affiliated with the Loveland Church in Los Angeles, CA.

Islam, when compared to Christianity is a step backwards; a step into "justification" of the enslavement of others.

The book Behind the Veil can be obtained from The Voice of the Martyrs @ 1-918-337-8015.

Rev. A: 5-1-97, Rev. B: 3-1-98

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bereny, March 21, 2007.


1.2 billion dollars to the pals in 2006

that is 1200,000,000 per year

that is 100,000,000 per month

that is 23,076,923 per week

that is 3 milion 296 thousand and 703 dollars per day to "resist by any means Israeli occupation" or with other words to kill Jews.

Steven Erlanger

Despite the international embargo on aid to the PA since Hamas came to power a year ago, significantly more aid was delivered to the Palestinians in 2006 than in 2005, according to official figures from the UN, U.S., EU, and IMF. Palestinians received $1.2 billion in aid in 2006, compared with $1 billion in 2005. Washington increased its aid to $468 million in 2006, from $400 million in 2005. The EU and its member states alone are subsidizing one million people in the West Bank and Gaza, a quarter of the population. While starvation has been avoided, a culture of dependence is expanding. (New York Times)

Contact the poster at bereny@tin.it

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, March 21, 2007.

1. What is a "peace activist."
Prof. I. Barr,
Michigan, USA.

We were informed that Tanya Reinhardt died in her sleep in her apartment in New York. She was called a "linguist" expert in syntax and probably some other linguistic issues. She was called also a "peace activist." Linguistically the words "peace activist" have the positive connotation that a peace activist is not only a good person but that he/she is better than most of us because this person is active. Most of us want peace. Go to anybody in Israel or West Bank and even in Gaza and you find a majority that wants peace.

To be an activist you have to show the world that you are doing something, to demonstrate your feelings. Those who are in government or institution can plan steps that promote peace, a road map, a series of agreements and alike. The plan for peace is known in advance and thus may or may not be supported by the interested parties. An agreement between two different groups of citizens should be an agreement that is local and not dictated by outside institutions or countries. Heads of state and their cabinet as rulers who have to come up with decisions and are responsible to their consequences.

"Peace activists" want their voices to be heard. They do not necessarily have a comprehensive plan for peace. They quickly understand that the louder they scream, the more extreme they are, their voices are more likely to be heard. To say that you are for peace is not enough. Most of us are such. But it is the psychology of "man bites a dog" which makes news. The more extreme are the allegations the more "peace activist" you are. So you wave the flag that you are Jewish and than you say that you are Israeli too. You get some audience. But then you have to come with more statements, Israeli are racist, do ethnic cleansing, kill Arabs, occupation, Apartheid state, paria state and "worse than the Nazi" and now you have a stronger title than your professorship: You are an internationally renowned "peace activist." At this stage the renowned does not have to come with a comprehensive peace plan. You trash the Oslo peace accords and every agreements that were made between Israel and the Palestinians. You blame Israel for war crimes while developing a tunnel vision: you look only at Israel and it's deed.

Every deed is inherently bad, but the Palestinians never ever do anything wrong. There is no mention of homicide bombing in Tanya Reinhardt book. It simply did not happen. If Israeli civilians are killed it must have been done by IDF itself to justify the "occupation." Indeed, many doors were opened for her in the anti Israel anti-Semitic arena. The Palestinian media and activists accepted her with open hands and probably were one of those who financed her. But where is her peace plan if she is a "peace activist"?

Reinhardt claimed free speech, yet free speech is a privilege that has to follow certain rules otherwise it is not free speech but a fascist dictate. Free speech has to be fair, balanced and accurate. Otherwise free speech becomes demagoguery. Free speech which criticizes has to allow to be criticized. She published articles in Counterpunch knowing that this anti Israel journal does not accept criticism and thus you can load your articles with falsehoods, misrepresentations, exaggerations and straight forward lies. You can ignore the Palestinians, Hamas, Hizballah, Islamic Jihad and alike as if Israel exists in a vacuum. While doing so Reinhardt did not carry any responsibility, she was not fair and was far from being balanced. Her peaceful activism turned into bitter hate. Now Israel has to be boycotted at any level, commerce, academia, culture and alike. This she thought "peacefully" will force Israel to accept her theory that Israel is illegitimate.

Thus it came to the fact that the University and College Lecturers' Union (NATFHE) voted for a motion to boycott Israeli academics who do not condemn Israel's "Apartheid policies." Reinhardt was, of course, accepted with open hands. Academic freedom, freedom of speech from which Tanya was nourished did not matter. She was spitting into the well from which she was drinking water.

Tanya Reinhart did not leave behind any significant linguistic research material, but she left behind tones of her papers and lectures against Israel and by inference the Jews. One wonders when did she have time to teach, to fulfill her duties at the University of Tel Aviv, a duty for which she was paid. What did she really teach? Was she indoctrinating her students? Was she able to separate her political world from her academic duties?

It seems that in reality she did not advocate peace and coexistence between Palestinians and Israeli. Rather she did what ever she could to widen the gap and to delegitimize Israel, to prefer Arab domination over Jewish right to exist. Tanya Reinhardt does not deserve the title "peace activist." We only hope that she will not become the Shahid of the radical left academics who are trying to follow her steps.

2. "KSM's Confession"
By Edward Jay Epstein
From the Wall Street Journal
Mr. Epstein is writing a book on the 9/11 Commission.

Last week Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) admitted to having been responsible for planning no fewer than 28 acts of terrorism, including the horrific September 11 attacks, from "A to Z." The sensational confession, made during a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, raises a number of serious questions -- most pointedly about the decision of the 9/11 Commission to rely on the CIA for information about this terrorist leader, who was captured in 2003.

Although the 9/11 Commission identified KSM as a key witness in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, it never was allowed to question him or his CIA interrogators. Instead, the staff received briefings from a CIA "project manager" -- who was himself briefed by other CIA case officers on what KSM had putatively revealed during his interrogation. As the 9/11 Commission chairmen noted, this was "third-hand" information; but it allowed the CIA to fill in critical gaps in the commission's investigation. Now KSM's claims throw this reliance on the CIA into question.

Consider the Feb. 26, 1993, attack on the north tower of the World Trade Center. A 1,500 pound truck bomb was exploded by Islamist terrorists, intending to topple the building. Over 1,000 people were injured, and eventually five of the perpetrators, including the bomb-builder, Ramzi Yousef, were caught and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Yousef is a relative of KSM, and was involved with him in a subsequent plot to blow up U.S. airliners. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission concluded that KSM had played at most a "cameo role" in the 1993 attack, limited to providing Yousef with $600 and having a few phone conversations with him. And it based this conclusion largely on the CIA briefings of what KSM had said during his interrogation.

According to the CIA, for example, KSM had maintained that "Yousef never divulged to him the target of the attack." The 1993 WTC bombing, therefore, appeared unrelated to the 9/11 attack -- and so the 9/11 Commission had no need to investigate it, or the conspirators involved in it.

In his confession, however, KSM says that he was responsible for the WTC bombing. If so, both it and 9/11 are the work of the same mastermind -- and the planning, financing and support network that KSM used in the 1993 attack may be relevant to the 9/11 attack. Of especial interest are the escape routes used by Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ramzi Yousef, both of whom helped prepare the bomb and then fled America.

Yasin (who is not even mentioned in the 9/11 report) came to the U.S. from Iraq in 1992, at about the same time as Yousef, and then returned to Iraq via Jordan. Despite being indicted for the World Trade Center bombing, and put on the FBI's list of the most-wanted terrorist fugitives with a $5 million price on his head (increased to $25 million after 9/11), Iraqi authorities allowed Yasin to remain in Baghdad for 10 years (In 2003, after the U.S. invasion, he disappeared.)

His co-conspirator Yousef, who entered the U.S. under an alias on an Iraqi passport (switching passports to his Pakistani identity), escaped after the 1993 WTC bombing to Pakistan, where, after being involved in another bombing plot with KSM, he was arrested and is currently in a U.S. prison. But if indeed KSM had been behind the 1993 bombing -- and the 9/11 Commission had not been told the opposite by the CIA -- the question of what support KSM had in recruiting the conspirators and organizing the escape routes of the bomb makers would have become a far more pressing investigative issue for the commission.

Of course, KSM's credibility is a very big "if." He might have lied in his confession about his role in the 1993 WTC bombing; he might have lied to his CIA captors (which itself would say something about the effectiveness of their aggressive interrogation); or, in selecting bits and pieces out of their full context, the CIA project officer may have accidentally mis-briefed the 9/11 Commission staff.

But at the root of the problem is the failure of the commission itself to question KSM. This was not for lack of trying. The commission chairmen fully recognized the need to gain access to the author of 9/11, and took note that their staff was becoming "frustrated" at their inability to get information from KSM and other detainees. On Dec. 22, 2003 -- with less than seven months remaining before they had to deliver their report -- they brought the problem up with George Tenet, then CIA director. He told them, point blank, "You are not going to get access to these detainees."

The commission considered using its subpoena power, but was advised by its general counsel that since KSM was being held in a secret prison on foreign soil, it was unlikely that any court would enforce a subpoena. The commission also decided against taking the issue public, believing it could not win in a battle with the administration, at least in the time it had left. So, lacking any viable alternatives, it allowed the CIA to control the information it needed from KSM and other detainees.

The result is that basic issues concerning KSM's interrogation -- and the dozens of crucial citations in the 9/11 Report -- are now in such doubt that 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey suggested last Sunday, in his Daily News column, that KSM be put on trial in New York, where presumably he could be properly cross-examined. While that remedy may be far-fetched, some resolution of this investigative failure is necessary.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. This appeared today in Arutz-Sheva

To Go To Top

Posted by Anita Tucker, March 21, 2007.

Dear friends,

You'll never guess what my husband Stuart and I dressed up as this Purim --- a Jeep with four flat tires --.

Yep, last Purim and Pesach we were still full of energy ready to build anew, our spirit and values had not been destroyed in the destruction of Gush Katif.

But when not much happens to enable our community to move forward to this goal it "takes the air out of your tires".

So now it is almost Pesach and this year's spring renewal season is pretty depressing for too many Gush Katifers.

I look out the back window of our temporary caravilla and see that, thank God, the flowers are blossoming again on every weed that just dropped a seed, even the wind and other things helped these flowers to be maintained by allowing the seed to start anew.

However for us not very much is renewed.

No building anew yet for the Gush Katif towns.

Not one town has yet been enabled to build their homes anew.

Not one synagogue or public building in a permanent new location anew and up.

We have the seeds and the energy and are just waiting to be able to DO IT.

With God's help, the Pesach message will polish up this spirit and those values we brought out with us from Gush Katif.

I know it and pray for it.

Yet, meanwhile the ray of hope I see is shining from those businessmen who have had the guts to begin anew.

The competition for Gush Katif stores near the big cities is really rough and most of the locations that the Katifers have been allotted for beginning their renewed stores are off the main road. So investing anew and getting customers to come has caused really rough riding for these "Nachshons" with the guts to give it their best --

As a former celery farmer, it is obvious to me that these retail stores need a bit of fertilizer, watering and T.L.C. (tender loving care) so that they'll get a head start and flourish as they deserve...

The same agricultural techniques will work for those Gush Katif families who are still going through really rough times, with no work and no permanence yet in site.

Also those who have put huge investments into starting new farms which they already had built up and lost in Gush Katif -- yet not receiving appropriate compensation for what they had and seeking to rebuild their good name and clientele, are also going through very tough financial and emotional times.

So some caring volunteers hooked up with the Gush Katif Committee to come up with a great idea to enable anyone of you who also care and feel concern to have an opportunity to be the trigger for a chain of chesed called the "Pesach Partnership".

If you are the type that makes the effort to send your Maot chittim funds to where you can really make a difference with endless ripples, than I think this might be it

You will in one effort help the needy, help the new stores and help those temporarily suffering through the rough times caused by the Expulsion from Gush Katif.

Read the details below and if it sounds as great an idea to you as it does to me than surely you will act on it.

Have a Chag Sameach!


Any of you interested in specifically partnering directly with my Netzer Hazani community can send help via

USA-Central Fund of Israel,
(earmarked) Netzer Hazani-PP (=pesach partnership)
ISRAEL- keren yochanan PP

mail airmail to

Anita tucker
Ein Tzurim
D.N. Sde Gat


for all of Gush Katif communities partner via details in the below link. http://www.katifund.org/pesach/pesach.htm

please forward to your friends as well

thanks for caring, caring gives strength,

Until August 2005, Anita Tucker was a farmer in Gush Katif, Gaza. Together with other Gaza expellees, she now lives in temporary quarters in Netzer Hazani, waiting for the government to settle the settlers so they can renew productive lives. As this article shows, she isn't holding her breathe, waiting for the government to do what they are supposed to. An activist, she has initiated action to help the expellees. She could use your help.

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 20, 2007.

This comes from

Insurgents in Iraq detonated an explosives-rigged vehicle with two children in the back seat after US soldiers let it through a Baghdad checkpoint over the weekend, a senior US military official said Tuesday. The vehicle was stopped at the checkpoint but was allowed through when soldiers saw the children in the back, said Major General Michael Barbero of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion. We let it move through. They parked the vehicle, and the adults ran out and detonated it with the children in the back," Barbero said.

Tools of the trade.

A screwdriver.




All to struggle in the way of Allah.

Blasphemy. Madness.


"It killed the two children inside as well as three other civilians in the vicinity. So, a total of five killed, seven injured," the official said.

Officials here said they did not know who the children were or their relationship to the two adults who fled the scene. They had no information about their ages or genders.

"The brutality and the ruthlessness of this enemy hasn't changed," said Barbero, deputy director of regional operations of the Joint Staff. "They are just interested in slaughtering Iraqi civilians, to be very honest."

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, March 20, 2007.

This below was a comment on an article that reported that that the Lebanon War of last summer has been declared a war (Ronny Sofer, "Ministerial committee declares Lebanon conflict a war," Ynet News, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3378240,00.html). The next issue is what to name the war.

This controversy reveals current state of denial

An aggression that resulted in so many casualties, not a war?

And there are other examples of this state of denial:

- Palestinians want peace.
-- The UN's opinion counts
-- Arab MKs are loyal citizens
-- The US is 100% behind Israel's interests
-- Pulling out of Gaza will bring peace
-- Peace Now's main goal is peace between Arabs and Jews. Really.
-- Peres statement: Cheer up. We are doing fine.
-- Defense budged reduced, Israel's defenses are just fine.
-- Peres: What rockets? Qassams shmassams."
-- Gush Katif refugees have been properly taken care of. Their unemployed just don't want to work.
-- Anyone can protest peacefully in Israel, without any fear.
-- Olmert: I'm doing my job
-- The justice system treats everyone the same.
-- We have a ceasefire with the PA
-- The UN is watching Lebanon's borders to prevent smuggling and rearmament.
-- Egypt is watching their border with Gaza to prevent smuggling and rearmament.
-- Israel didn't lose the second Lebanon war
-- Money given to the PA is for peaceful projects only.
-- Fatah is moderate
-- Israel's civilians and military are ready for any attack.
-- Olmert: Sanctions are working against Iran.
-- Me guilty? Absolutely not! (fill in the blanks with names of some past and present government officials)

Too depressing...

Tracy W (03.19.07)

To Go To Top

Posted by Joe Kaufman, March 20, 2007.

This appeared in FrontPageMagazine.com today.

Nabil El-Shukrijumah lives with the dubious distinction of having a family associated with terrorism. His father was the spiritual leader of one of the most dangerous mosques in America and a character witness for an explosives expert convicted for his involvement in a plot to blow up New York's Lincoln and Holland Tunnels. His brother, a jihad camp trainee, is said to be the fugitive leader of a terror cell charged with carrying out the next wave of 9/11-style attacks on U.S. soil. Is Nabil's terrorist pedigree enough to push him towards the same? If his websites are any indication, then the answer is yes.

Gulshair El-Shukrijumah had been an imam at Masjid Nur Al-Islam, located in Brooklyn, New York. He was sent there as a missionary by the Saudi government, in 1986. One of his congregants, Clement Rodney Hampton-El, was a veteran of the Soviet-Afghan War, an explosives expert, and possibly the one that taught the cell how to build the bomb used in the '93 World Trade Center attack. Gulshair, as well, was a translator for Omar Abdel-Rahman (a.k.a. The Blind Sheikh), who was the local spiritual leader of the group associated with the bombing conspiracy, Maktab Al-Khidmat.

Prior to Hampton-El's and Abdel-Rahman's convictions in 1996, Gulshair had taken his wife and kids out of Brooklyn and brought them to Miramar, Florida, where he was to become the imam of the Al-Hijrah Mosque. Nabil, his son, was 13, at the time. Aside from the father, the family had only been in Brooklyn for a short stay. The wife, Zuhra Abdu Ahmed, and children had previously been residing in Saudi Arabia.

Adnan El-Shukrijumah was the eldest of the children. When he was born, in 1975, his mother was just 16 years old, a child herself. His father was 47. Shortly after arriving in Florida, Adnan enrolled in classes at Broward Community College, studying engineering. According to school records, he was a student there till 1999. Adnan was widely known throughout the South Florida Muslim community, having spent time in numerous area mosques and Islamic centers. He was a devout Muslim and was well versed in Quranic teachings, often imparting that knowledge to those younger than himself.

In May of 2001, Adnan left Florida for Trinidad, where he had family -- according to his father, to sell Islamic garments. Nabil, his brother, was 18, at the time. He would not return, as authorities gathered intelligence that Adnan was being groomed by Al-Qaeda to become the next Mohammed Atta, with whom it is believed he (Adnan) had dealings while in the States. That intelligence came, in part, from the operational commander of the September 11th attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Other terrorists Adnan has been associated with include: "Dirty Bomber" Jose Padilla, Hamas and Al-Qaeda fundraiser Adham Hassoun, and convicted terrorist Imran Mandhai. Padilla and Hassoun are currently awaiting trial in Miami. Today, Adnan is alleged to be part of an Al-Qaeda nuclear bomb plot. When word got out about his terror ties, his father was released from his duties as imam of Al-Hijrah, in March of 2003.

Gulshair didn't have to wait long to find a new job, as he soon became a director at the Shamsuddin Islamic Center, located in North Miami Beach. The mosque had recently moved across the street from its original location, at the same address as the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA). AMANA's director, Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout, was previously the Vice President of the Health Resource Center for Palestine (HRCP), a "charity" that was shut down, after it had been exposed for having ties to Hamas.

Besides his profession as an imam, Gulshair was also an Arabic language teacher. He even tutored Mandhai, before he (Mandhai) went to prison. Prior to his disappearance, Adnan had set his father up with a website that would be used to sell Gulshair's books and tapes on how to learn Arabic. The website was appropriately titled, " Master Arabic." On it, Adnan stated, "My father is the narrator of a system designed to take you from as basic as the alphabet to constructing words to conversation to Arabic [sic] grammer... Go ahead and click your way to mastering Arabic."

The site contained a guestbook within it. The very first signatory in it was AMANA's Zakkout. Soon after him, an individual by the name of Bilal Philips signed. Years before, Philips had been placed on the U.S. Attorney's list of potential co-conspirators of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. He wrote, "Salaam alaykum Ibn Shukri, Mabrook on the website and special salaams to your father and prayers for his good spiritual and physical health. He was one of my first teachers in Arabic and is a dear friend, though geography and world politics has separated us. Tell him that, as always, I love him for the sake of Allaah. Was salaam, Bilal." Gulshair's site also contained a picture of another "unindicted co-conspirator" of the '93 bombing, Siraj Wahhaj.

Adnan's tribute to his father would end in July of 2003, when the website would be taken down. [The internet address for the site is set to expire in June of 2008.] However, recently, Adnan's brother, Nabil, would honor Gulshair with his own tribute site -- of the same title.

Nabil, who runs a print company out of his parents' home, like his brother before him, has proficient web design skills. Within My Space, an online community that allows you to keep in contact with friends and family, Nabil created a new "Master Arabic" page for his father. On the page, he placed numerous pictures of Gulshair. One is of Gulshair teaching two young boys at his Brooklyn mosque. One of the lines on the blackboard reads, "The human being is under the oppression of the kuffar (unbelievers)."

Gulshair's words were not the only disturbing message on this web page. In December of 2006, Nabil posted the following, with severe implications: "As Salaam Alaikum Dad, you're still living among all of us, will see you later but not that much later."

In addition to his father's page, Nabil created his own personal My Space page. He uses the name "El-Shukri." [Shukrijumah is the combination of Shukri and the last name of the family, Jumah or Juman.] On the site, one finds many examples of how he has sought to follow in his father's and brother's extremist footsteps.

Numerous pictures that Nabil put on his page are of a jihadist nature. One of them can easily be construed as a threat to Israel's existence. It states, "Oh Jerusalem, we are coming" and shows a terrorist [draped with a Saudi flag] with rifle on horseback, watching as the city burns in flames. Another picture depicts scenes of dead American soldiers. Under one of the scenes, it says, "These are the armaments of the enemy, who are disgraced." The picture, which contains a militant holding a rocket launcher, is from an Iraqi "resistance" group. Above the picture are large images of Saddam Hussein.

Two pictures on the page are from a Muslim rap group called Soldiers of Allah. They both include the black Islamic flag of war, which has been made popular by the banned British Islamist organizations, Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb-ut-Tahrir. As well, when one opens Nabil's page, he/she is treated to Soldiers of Allah's song, '1924.' It contains the following quotes: "I am not going to give one inch of Palestine to the Jews... I would rather have my flesh be cut up than cut out Palestine from the Muslim land..." and "When the west was training Muslim scholars for hire, Jews were setting Al-Aqsa mosque on fire!" [A reference to a 1969 fire at the mosque, started by Dennis Michael Rohan, an Australian Christian]

One other picture on Nabil's page is not worrisome for what it has on it, but for where it came from, www.arab3.com. The site is registered to Yousif Al-Olayyan, a former student at the University of Florida. Al-Olayyan is also the registered agent and the editor-in-chief for www.alsakher.com, a site that features in-depth discussions about Al-Qaeda, including from those that claim to be affiliated with the organization's leaders. One individual, who goes by the title 'Al-Am' or 'The Pains,' stated, " I was with Sheikh Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri to launch attacks in the Arab country..."

Along with the many pictures, Nabil placed a video on his My Space about how America attacked itself on 9/11. This is outrageous, given the fact that his brother Adnan, who is nicknamed Jafar the Pilot, is suspected of flight training with the perpetrators of 9/11.

My Space allows people to join others' My Space pages as "friends." Every "friend" needs to be approved by the owner of the site. As well, My Space allows you to place your favorite set of "friends" on your homepage, along with their pictures or logos. On Nabil's site, there are numerous suspect individuals. His favorites include: a 23-year-old resident of Hollywood, Florida named Yusuf Abdullah, who calls the El-Shukrijumah family "a blessing in my life."

Abdullah's page sports a background picture of a Quran and a Kalashnikov rifle alongside one another. Additionally, on his site, one finds audio and video of the song 'Ghurabaa' by Saad al-Ghamdi. In the piece, it is repeated, "So let us make jihad, and battle, and fight from the start."

Also featured in Nabil's favorites is a My Space page dedicated to the deceased Chechen terror warlord, Omar Ibn al Khattab. Khattab, who was closely aligned with Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network, was responsible for the murders of scores of Russian soldiers. The page is called "Hattab -- The Lion of Islam," and it contains an abundance of footage from Chechen terror operations, as well as the Hamas logo and a poem stating, "It is Islam, [it has] returned. In the path of Allah, we have walked and announced Jihad. We have returned with a machine gun."

Another "friend" of Nabil is Vegeta (a.k.a. Saiyan). On Vegeta's site, visitors can see photographs of Hamas and Hezbollah terror fighters, including children dressed in terrorist garb. Nabil posted a comment on the site, calling Vegeta "my Muslim Brother" and approvingly stated, concerning an anti-Israel video Vegeta had posted, "Very good, Masha' Allah."

Nabil enjoys posting comments on other people's sites, including numerous statements containing the highly offensive term " nigga." He has also posted religious material, such as a flyer for the Nur-Ul-Islam children's Academy. Nur-Ul-Islam was co-founded by Raed Awad, a former agent for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a "charity" that raised millions of dollars for Hamas. In addition, it was Awad that is believed to be responsible for the conversion to Islam by Jose Padilla.

Web design skills within the El-Shukrijumah family are not just limited to Adnan and Nabil. Aidah, their 22-year-old sister, has her own My Space page, as well. On it, she pays tribute to her lost brother with photographs. On one, she refers to him as "Big bro." In another, she and her siblings are sitting outdoors next to their father, holding a sketch of Adnan. The photo was taken outside the CBC Building in Toronto, one of Adnan's known stomping grounds. The picture is labeled "Memories." Long forgotten, it seems, was the time, in 1997, when "Big bro" was arrested for biting Aidah. That was then.

Today, Aidah has a new life with her husband, who from the looks of one of his shirts, hails from the windy city of Chicago. Relocated, she is, awaiting her soon-to-be born baby, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, thousands of miles from the family's Miramar home.

Does she know where her brother, Adnan, is? Who can say? Does any of the family know? If they do, they've been careful not to slip up. The mother has admitted to telling him not to return, for fear of him being brought to justice.

One thing is for certain, though. Whether Adnan comes back or not, the family has a new adult jihadi to keep the legacy alive -- Nabil El-Shukrijumah. Given the trouble the United States has had in locating his brother, one would think that he would be watched with at least the same interest and intensity.

To Go To Top

Posted by BE Shepp, March 20, 2007.

This entry was posted on 3/19/2007 12:27 PM and is filed under Ummah News Links (http://ummahnewslinks.com/2007/03/19/islamist-website-instructs-mujahideen -in-using-popular-us-web-forums-to-foster-antiwar-sentiment- among-americans.aspx).

In the past few months, Islamists engaged in "media jihad" have increased their efforts to expose as broad a Western audience as possible to their jihad films, which purport to document the growing success of the mujahideen in Iraq and Afghanistan. As part of this endeavor, they have posted jihad films on popular free video-sharing websites such as YouTube, LiveLeak, and Google Video, hoping that such films will tip public opinion in the West against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan -- thus pressuring Western governments to withdraw their troops from these countries.

As part of the campaign to foster anti-war sentiment among Westerners, and more specifically among Americans, a member of the Al-Mohajroon Islamist website with the username Al-Wathiq Billah instructed mujahideen in how to infiltrate popular American forums and to use them to distribute jihad films and spread disinformation about the war.

The following are excerpts:

"Raiding American Forums is Among the Most Important Means of Obtaining Victory in the Fierce Media War -- and of Influencing the Views of the Weak-Minded American"

"There is no doubt, my brothers, that raiding American forums is among the most important means of obtaining victory in the fierce media war... and of influencing the views of the weak-minded American who pays his taxes so they will go to the infidel American army. This American is an idiot and does not [even] know where Iraq is... [It is therefore] mandatory for every electronic mujahid [to engage in this raiding]."

"It is better that you raid non-political forums such as music forums and trivia forums... which American people... favor... Define your target[ed forum]... and get to know it well... Post your contribution and do not get into... futile arguments..."

Indicate You Are an American

"Obviously, you have to register yourself using a purely American name... Choose an icon that indicates that you are an American, and place it next to your nickname [in the forum]."

"In my experience, the areas most visited in American forums... [are titled] 'Random Thoughts' and 'What's going on in your mind?'... [The former] takes priority in the American forums, and is highly popular. You should post your contribution there... This should include films of the mujahideen in Iraq, mujahideen publications in English, and images and films of the Americans' crimes, [such as] killing unarmed civilians in Iraq... etc."

"Invent Stories About American Soldiers You Have [Allegedly] Personally Known"

"Obviously, you should post your contribution... as an American... You should correspond with visitors to this forum, [bringing to their attention] the frustrating situation of their troops in Iraq... You should invent stories about American soldiers you have [allegedly] personally known (as classmates... or members in a club who played baseball and tennis with you) who were drafted to Iraq and then committed suicide while in service by hanging or shooting themselves..."

"Also, write using a sad tone, and tell them that you feel sorry for your [female] neighbor or co-worker who became addicted to alcohol or drugs... because her poor fiancé, a former soldier in Iraq, was paralyzed or [because] his legs were amputated... [Use any story] which will break their spirits, oh brave fighter for the sake of God..."

How to Make Americans Feel Frustrated With Their Government

"You should enter into debate or respond only if it is extremely necessary... Your concern should [only] be introducing topics which... will cause [them to feel] frustration and anger towards their government..., which will... render them hostile to Bush... and his Republican Party and make them feel they must vote ton bring the troops back from Iraq as soon as possible."

"Do not... discuss issues pertaining to Arabs or Muslims at all, whether negatively or positively... because this could be a trap for you... In addition, do not ask people to circulate the material [you have posted] in other forums... as these types of requests will expose you..."

Links in the original at MEMRI

Contact BE Shep at BEShepp33@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 20, 2007.

The United States breaks the boycott of the 'Palestinian Authority'

The United States consulate in 'East Jerusalem' (less than a mile from my home as the crow flies) has been known for years as the unofficial US embassy to the 'Palestinians.' It has also been known as a hotbed of virulent anti-Israel and anti-Semitic positions. Ultimately, if the boycott was going to be broken, this was not a surprising source.

Al-AP has reported within the last hour that the United States Consul General in Jerusalem has met with 'Palestinian' 'finance minister' Salam Fayad. Yes, that would be the same Salam Fayad (pictured in the very western-looking suit at top left) who told us last week that he had no idea where moneys that have been donated to the 'Palestinians' since Hamas took power ended up.

Jacob Walles, the US consul general in Jerusalem, met with Fayaad in the West Bank town of Ramallah, said Palestinian Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti.

"This is part of the ordinary meetings that Palestinian ministers are conducting with the international community," Barghouti said.

Micaela Schweitzer-Bluhm, spokeswoman for the US consulate, would not confirm or deny the meeting.

An Israeli official said the government was waiting for official US comment before responding. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because there was no official U.S. confirmation.

Just yesterday Hamas took 'credit' for a shooting attack against an unarmed Israeli electrical worker at the Karni crossing into the Gaza Strip. But hey -- let's just give them a state reichlet anyway.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:21 PM

It is Islam that is the "new-comer, the invader, the squatter, the illegal occupier... for Islam (and the first Muslim) never appeared before 622AD. The Christians had already been there for six centuries, the Jews for over FIFTY centuries!

Below is Article number 44, by Lee Underwood,

http://www.whosepromisedland.co.uk/article.php?article=44 Lee Underwood is with the Shamar organization --

In 586 BCE, on 9 Av, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the First Temple.

Two thousand five hundred fifty-three years later, on June 7, 1967 (28 Iyar 5727), during the Six-Day War, Israel regained control of Biblical east Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount.

For the first time in more than 2,000 years, was in complete control of the entire city.

Within a few days, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan gave control of the Temple Mount back to the Moslems, while maintaining Israeli sovereignty over it. Thirteen years later, Israel adopted its "basic law; Jerusalem" declaring, "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel".

If the above had happened in any other nation, it wouldn't have garnered much attention from the rest of the world. But it didn't happen in just any other nation. It happened in the nation of Israel. Because of this, the entire world is in an uproar.

On November 29, 1947 -- six months before the declaration of the State of Israel -- the United Nations passed Resolution 181.

One of the main points of this Resolution was the establishment of Jerusalem as a "corpus separatum" ("body of separate covenant").

This means, basically, that the UN separated the city of Jerusalem from the rest of the world and created a separate covenant for it.

This has never been done before in all of history.

In 1950 the UN adopted the "Statute for the City of Jerusalem"setting forth the regulations for the administration of the city of Jerusalem by the United Nations.

It would be an international city; it would not be linked to, or controlled by, any nation or government except the United Nations.

Why would the world be so concerned with an ancient city like Jerusalem?

It is located approximately 27 miles inland from the coast. It has no natural resources. Most of it is built upon the ruins of previous structures. What makes it so important that the United Nations would set it apart from any other city or nation in the entire world?

The interesting aspect is that Jerusalem has never been important to the nations unless it was important to Israel. When Israel started to return to the Land in large numbers during the late 1800's, the nations began to stir. It was just a little more than 50 years later that the UN adopted its "Statute for the City of Jerusalem".

The importance of Jerusalem lies in its spiritual aspect, not its physical makeup. It is a city that lives and responds to the Holy One of Israel.

God declares to Ezekiel how He had mercy on Jerusalem, how He blessed her and made a covenant with her (Ezekiel 16.6-14).

Jeremiah laments of her misery and suffering after God judged her (Lamentations 1.1-22).

Yet God declared that He will not forget Jerusalem; He will establish an everlasting covenant with her (Ezekiel 16.60-63).

Jerusalem is the center of the earth, according to the Lord (Ezekiel 5.5).

Its very existence continually proves that there is a God and that He will judge every man and hold him accountable for his deeds.

God has declared that Jerusalem is the place from which He will reign: "At that time they shall call Jerusalem 'The Throne of the Lord'" (Jeremiah 3.17a).

It is to Jerusalem that Jesus will return in the Glory of the Father (Acts 1.11; see also Ezekiel 43.1-4).

The Lord said He was "exceedingly jealous for Jerusalem" (Zechariah 1.14).

Many of the prophets spoke of the Lord's return to Jerusalem.

The Lord declared through Zechariah, "'I will return to Jerusalem with compassion; My house will be built in it', declares the Lord of hosts" (Zechariah 1.16a; see also Zechariah 2.12; 8.3).

More than 4,000 years ago Abraham understood the importance of the city when he declared that Mount Moriah, in the midst of Jerusalem, would be "the place where God will be seen" (Genesis 22.14).

Yet God also declared that Jerusalem would be a problem for the nations of the world:

"Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. And it will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it" (Zechariah 12.2-3).

The Lord also gave warning of His judgment against those who come against Jerusalem:

"And it will come about in that day that I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zechariah 12.9); "Now this will be the plague with which the L-rd will strike all the peoples who have gone to war against Jerusalem; their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, and their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongue will rot in their mouth" (Zechariah 14.12).

Jerusalem is important to the Holy One of Israel. It is the place that He has chosen to dwell in the midst of His creation. It is also the place where He will judge the nations.

Does this scenario sound familiar? It should. It is happening in our very day.

Literally all of the nations of the world are gathering against Israel.

The line has been drawn in the sand.

It is the people of the God of Israel standing against all the nations of the world.

Whose side will you be on?

This is not the time to be straddling the fence. Now is the time to make a stand.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, for through her peace will come the peace of the world. Enter into the battle, put on the full armour of God. Stand and see the salvation of the Lord.

Additional Readings:

Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (November 29, 1947)

Statute for the City of Jerusalem.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 20, 2007.


Mayor Ken Livingstone espouses multiculturalism. How does he implement it? (1) Organized a conference on Islam and the West with speakers who almost all denounced the West as the source of the conflict (jihad); and (2) Set aside separate prayer rooms for Muslim men and women, and nothing for other faiths.

The media generally have ignored the anomaly of a socialist mayor allying himself with the most reactionary strain of Islam, its arguments, and its demands.

Leftist British newspapers took the Muslim line on the suicide bombing of London, by blaming not jihad but British foreign policy. "Now overwhelmingly and everywhere you find people who scream their heads off about the smallest sexist or racist remark, yet refuse to confront ultra-reactionary movements that explicitly reject every principle they profess to hold." There is no logic nor principle behind this subservient alliance with Islam (Prof. Steven Plaut, 2/23 from Nick Cohen).


The new Sec. of Defense, Robert Gates, is complacent about nuclear weapons getting into the hands of Iran's President, because, Gates supposes, other leaders in Iran would deal responsibly about it.

Sec. Gates omitted the increase, such possession would permit, in Iran's ability and likelihood of damaging US interests. His thinking is dangerous (Jewish Political Chronicle, 11/2006, p.45 from Jerusalem Post, 12/6).

Such theories mired the US in Iran-Contra, which strengthened Iran against us. It is the kind of thinking that saw Iran's Pres. Khatami as a moderate, while he pursued nuclear development and built up terrorist forces. It ignores Islamist ideology and assumes, without knowing, ideological differences in opposing factions in Iran. Those are slender suppositions on which to risk national survival. Hence, Gates's thinking is dangerous.


The UNO Human Rights Commission is publishing a report that condemns Israel for war crimes, occupation, and apartheid, and demands an end to the financial boycott of the Hamas regime, for humanitarian reasons. It also finds the firing of rockets at Israel a war crime, but claims Israel does much worse.

The report blames Israel for impoverishing Gazans. Actually, as much economic aid flows to the P.A. as before, but to Abbas. (The Muslims waste or divert the aid to war.)


You may have a strong sense of honor and an Arab may have a strong sense of honor, but it isn't the same. In eastern, traditional societies, vindication of their culture is more important than freedom and wealth. Both the Baathists and the Islamists dream of heroic resistance and of restoring "greatness." Westerners tend to dream more of earning their first million or writing a book.

Muslims would rather grind into poverty than make peace with Israel, whose existence is a humiliation of Islam, which is supposed to conquer all and keep the infidels down. Fighting may not accomplish anything, but it redeems their honor.

The 9/11 attack was unprovoked aggression and a war crime. It puzzles us to find the Muslims neither outraged by 9/11 nor ashamed of it. The explanation is that they consider violence justified to protect their honor, as if a form of self-defense. Having somewhere, somehow, been humiliated by the infidel US, perhaps merely being shown up by its success compared with their failure, they attacked it. That is why Muslims all over the world rejoiced over our casualties.

We spare civilians, and consider the Muslims uncivilized for not doing so. Their society is primitive in its ethics. They consider civilians fair game, merely for belonging to the enemy, and as spoils of war. Remember, they still practice slavery in places; elsewhere the colonial West banned it, the Arabs didn't evolve their code of ethics beyond that barbarism.

Remember laughing at Saddam's Minister of Information, who told the TV cameras that his troops were mopping up the Americans at Baghdad airport, though the cameras showed the US troops advancing? He knew he was lying. However, under his code, it would not be honorable to admit weakness. He must save face. No wonder Saddam pretended to hide weapons of mass-destruction he didn't have. (He may have hidden them in other countries or been lied to, himself.) His lie resulted in war, but he preferred being thought strong.

They may not be rational by our lights, but neither are they crazy (Jewish Political Chronicle, 11/2006, p.45 from Jonathan Rauch, National Journal).


Iran represses strikes. The US fails to protest. We lose opportunities to embarrass and weaken the Iranian regime and to encourage dissidence there (Michael Rubin, MEF News, 2/23).

Iranians have many grievances against their regime. They might overthrow it if they did not feel abandoned by us.

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@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, March 19, 2007.

by Martin Peretz -- The New Republic
Issue date: 02.12.07
Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief of The New Republic.

George Soros lunched with some reporters on Saturday at Davos. He talked about spending $600 million on civil society projects during the 1990s, then trying to cut back to $300 million, and how this year it will be between $450 and $500 million. His new projects aim, in Floyd Norris's words, to promote a "common European foreign policy" (read: an anti-American foreign policy) and also to study the integration (or so he thinks) of Muslims in eleven European cities. He included among his dicta a little slight at Bill and Melinda Gates, who "have chosen public health, which is like apple pie." And then, after saying the United States was now recognizing the errors it made

in Iraq, he added this comment, as reported by Norris in The New York Times' online "Davos Diary": "To what extent it recognizes the mistake will determine its future." Soros said Turkey and Japan were still hurt by a reluctance to admit to dark parts of their history and contrasted that reluctance to Germany's rejection of its Nazi-era past. "America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany. We have to go through a certain deNazification process."

No, you are not seeing things. He said de-Nazification. He is not saying, in the traditional manner of liberal alarmists, that the United States is now where Weimar Germany was. He is saying that the United States is now where Germany after Weimar was. Even for Davos, this was stupid. Actually, worse than stupid. There is a historical analysis, a moral claim, in Soros's word. He believes that the United States is now a Nazi country. Why else would we have to go through a "certain de-Nazification process"? I defy anybody to interpret the remark differently. The analogy between Bush's America and Hitler's Germany is not fleshed out, and one is left wondering how far he would take it. Is Bush like Hitler? If it is "de-Nazification" that we need, then in some sense Bush must be like Hitler. Was the invasion of Iraq like the invasion of Poland? Perhaps. The more one lingers over Soros's word, the more one's eyes pop from one's head. In the old days, the Amerika view of America was propagated by angry kids on their painful way to adulthood; now, it is propagated by the Maecenas of the Democratic Party.

But nobody seems to have noticed. I did not see Soros's canard reported in other places, and on the Times' website on the day I saw it there were only four comments. Imagine the outcry if a Republican moneybags--say, Richard Mellon Scaife--had declared that Hillary Clinton is a communist or that Bill Clinton's America had been in need of a certain de-Stalinization process. But I hear no outcry from Soros's congregation. People who were repelled by Bush's rather plausible notion of the "axis of evil" seem untroubled by Soros's imputation of even worse evil to Bush. Because Bush really is a fascist, isn't he? And Cheney, too; and Donald Rumsfeld, and Antonin Scalia, and even Joe Lieberman, right? Or so I fear too many liberals now believe. There seems to be a renaissance among liberals of the view that there are no enemies to the left. I hear no Democrats expressing embarrassment, or revulsion, at Soros's comment. Whether this silence is owed to their agreement or to their greed, it is outrageous.

But if Soros lives in a Nazi state, what does that make him? I still recall Karl Jaspers's devastating point, in The Question of German Guilt in 1947, that every German shares in the guilt of Hitlerism. Such guilt was not, in Jaspers's mind, an abstraction or a purely political matter. But Soros does not appear to accept any responsibility for the Nazi-like crimes he ascribes to the United States. Perhaps he thinks that, having contributed $18 million to elect John Kerry in 2004, he was an American hero, a dissident, a resistance fighter, the Grill Room's representative of the White Rose. And if, in 2008, Soros's gang comes to power, how will de-Nazification work? Whom shall we send to prison? Perhaps we should prevent everybody who voted or argued for the war from running for office. At the very least, the neocons must be brought to justice. (Maybe Ramsey Clark can represent them.)

What makes Soros's remark even more twisted is that he himself experienced something of Nazism. He was 14 when the Nazis entered Budapest. On December 20, 1998, there appeared this exchange between Soros and Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes":

Kroft: "You're a Hungarian Jew ..."
Soros: "Mm-hmm."

Kroft: "... who escaped the Holocaust ..."
Soros: "Mm-hmm."

Kroft: "... by posing as a Christian."
Soros: "Right."

Kroft: "And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps."
Soros: "Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when my character was made."

Kroft: "In what way?"
Soros: "That one should think ahead. One should understand that--and anticipate events and when, when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a-- a very personal threat of evil."

Kroft: "My understanding is that you went ... went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews."
Soros: "Yes, that's right. Yes."

Kroft: "I mean, that's--that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?"
Soros: "Not, not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't ... you don't see the connection. But it was--it created no--no problem at all."

Kroft: "No feeling of guilt?"
Soros: "No."

Kroft: "For example, that, 'I'm Jewish, and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be these, I should be there.' None of that?"
Soros: "Well, of course, ... I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was--well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in the markets--that is I weren't there--of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would--would--would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the--whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the--I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."

So this is the psychodrama that has been visited on American liberalism. We learn Soros never has nightmares. Had he been tried in a de-Nazification process for having been a young cog in the Hitlerite wheel, he would have felt that, since other people would have confiscated the same Jewish property and delivered the same deportation notices to the same doomed Jews, it was as if he hadn't done it himself. He sleeps well, while we sleep in Nazi America.

Soros is ostentatiously indifferent to his own Jewishness. He is not a believer. He has no Jewish communal ties. He certainly isn't a Zionist. He told Connie Bruck in The New Yorker -- testily, she recounted-- that "I don't deny the Jews their right to a national existence-- but I don't want to be part of it." But he has involved himself in the founding of an anti-aipac, more dovish Israel lobby. Suddenly, he wants to influence the character of a Jewish state about which he loudly cares nothing. Once again, he bears no responsibility. Perhaps his sense of his own purity also underwrites his heartlessness in business. As a big currency player in the world markets, Soros was at least partially responsible for the decline in the British pound.

Forget my differences with Soros's Jewishness. Call it shul politics. But the characterization of the United States under Bush as Nazi is much bigger, and more grave, than shul politics. It casts a shadow over U.S. politics. In the same conversation at Davos, Soros announced that he is supporting Senator Barack Obama, though he would also support Senator Hillary Clinton. So my question to both of those progressives is this: How, without any explanation or apology from him, will you take this man's money?

2. The New Blood Libel
New York Sun Staff Editorial
March 19, 2007

Since at least the Middle Ages, the approach of Easter has been marked by anti-Semites who make the false allegation that Jews slaughter gentile children and use their blood to bake unleavened bread for Passover. This alleged bloodthirst among the Jews is a classic anti-Semitic myth, known as the blood libel, that has been used over the years to justify the actual killing of many actual Jews.

This holiday season, a new blood libel is being bandied about, though those wielding it would be appalled to think they are dealing in the same hatreds. They are, after all, neither Cossacks nor rednecks marauding through the woods of Eastern Europe or the American South. We are not saying they are anti-Semites. They are a two-time Pulitzer-Prize winner and a billionaire philanthropist, writing in publications that appeal to an intellectual audience in America. Here's the two-time Pulitzer-winner, Nicholas Kristof, in yesterday's New York Times: "B'Tselem, a respected Israeli human rights organization, reports that last year Palestinians killed 17 Israeli civilians (including one minor) and six Israeli soldiers. In the same period, B'Tselem said, Israeli forces killed 660 Palestinians, triple the number killed in 2005. Of the Palestinians killed in 2006, half were not taking part in hostilities at the time they were killed, and 141 were minors."

Here is the billionaire philanthropist, George Soros, writing in the New York Review of Books of April 12: "The current policy of not seeking a political solution but pursuing military escalation -- not just an eye for an eye but roughly speaking ten Palestinian lives for every Israeli one -- has reached a particularly dangerous point."

Aside from the fact that Israel was being attacked by the Palestinians after withdrawing to the 1967 borders of the Gaza Strip, here's some context that Mr. Kristof left out. B'Tselem is funded by German church groups, the governments of Switzerland and the European Union, and the same Ford Foundation that underwrote the anti-Israel agitation that preceded the United Nations' Durban conference.

Moreover, the statistics Mr. Kristof cites don't include Israelis killed by other Arab terrorists working in league with the Palestinian Arabs and funded by the same Iranian terror master. In 2006, that included 43 Israeli civilians and 117 Israeli soldiers who were killed in the war with Lebanese-based Hezbollah. The B'Tselem statistics do include -- but Mr. Kristof omits -- the 55 Palestinian Arabs killed in 2006 by other Palestinian Arabs, a figure to which can be added another 84 killed in intramural violence in January and February of 2007.

For these deaths, it seems Mr. Kristof hasn't yet figured out how to blame the Israelis. Nor does Mr. Kristof's selective use of the B'Tselem statistics include the Americans and those from other countries who were killed by Palestinian Arab terrorists, such as Daniel Wultz, a 16-year-old from Florida who was slain in a 2006 suicide attack on the old central bus station in Tel Aviv.

More broadly, both Messrs. Soros and Kristof ignore an essential difference. The Israelis are out to minimize both their own casualties and those of the noncombatants behind whom their enemies hide. They build bomb shelters into every building and have established a culture where civil rights groups, independent commissions, and a Supreme Court investigate allegations of misconduct beyond the collateral damage that is an inevitable consequence of any war.

The Palestinian Arabs, in contrast, are out to maximize casualties, training their children as suicide bombers in hopes that they will become "martyrs," so that gullible Westerners who haven't thought the matter through will use their deaths to extract concessions from Israel. The Palestinian Arabs attack Israeli civilian targets such as pizza parlors, banquet halls, wedding parties, and buses as a matter of policy, while the Israeli army goes to great lengths to avoid targeting civilians.


Given Mr. Soros' significance as the moneybags of the activist core of the Democratic Party, it is going to be illuminating to see how the party reacts to the billionaire's call for the party to "liberate itself from AIPAC's influence." In his New York Review of Books piece Mr. Soros comes awfully close to buying into the whole paranoia of Professors Mearsheimer and Walt.

Mr. Soros, who describes himself in the New York Review of Books as neither a Zionist nor "a practicing Jew," claims to have a great deal of sympathy "for my fellow Jews" plus "a deep concern for the survival of Israel." He says he is prepared to be subjected to "a campaign of personal vilification." We don't desire to vilify either Messrs. Soros or Kristof, nor do we draw any conclusions about their motives. At a certain point, though, people stop caring about what their motives are.

The fact is that they write at a time when a war against the Jews is underway. It is a war in which the American people have stood with Israel for three generations. The reason is the same that moved America to take the side it took in the war against the Nazis and communists, from whom Mr. Soros fled as a youth in Europe. The reason is that Americans are wise enough to understand which side in the war against the Jews shares our values -- and to sort out the truth from the libels.

3. "Straight Talk on Palestine"
By Khaled Abu Toameh
March 20, 2007; Page A19
Mr. Toameh is Palestinian affairs editor of the Jerusalem Post.

Even before the Palestinian "unity" government was sworn in Saturday at least five European countries announced that they would resume their business with the Hamas-led coalition.

The U.S. has endorsed Israel's position on the Palestinian government -- namely, that its political platform does not meet the conditions set by the so-called "Quartet" of the U.S., EU, U.N. and Russia for ending the boycott. Washington is now under heavy pressure from its Arab allies in the Middle East to deal with it.

But the U.S. should stand firm. The Palestinian government is not committed to the Quartet's demands that it renounce violence, recognize Israel and abide by agreements signed with Israel in the past. The speeches delivered by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his new Hamas partner, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, at Saturday's parliamentary session show that the Palestinians are determined instead to continue their strategy of double-talk.

Neither the president nor the prime minister openly called for an end to terrorism or for recognizing Israel's right to exist. And to add to the confusion, the two men came up with a political program that contains many contradictions and ambiguities.

The wording of the program was drafted in such a way as to allow both Hamas and Fatah to argue that neither party had totally abandoned its traditional position. The equivocal tone is also designed to appease the Americans and Europeans. After all, the main goal of the new coalition is to get the international community to resume desperately needed financial aid.

With regard to the three main demands of the Quartet, the program leaves the door wide open for different interpretations.

On the issue of terrorism, the program states that the new government "stresses that resistance is a legitimate right of the Palestinian people ... and our people have the right to defend themselves against any Israeli aggression." But the program also says that the new government will "work toward consolidating the tahdiya [period of calm] and extending it [to the West Bank] so that it becomes a comprehensive and mutual truce."

The program sets a number of conditions for halting the "resistance" -- ending the "occupation" and achieving independence and the right of return for Palestinian refugees, as well as an end to Israeli security measures in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (including the construction of the security fence). In other words, Fatah and Hamas are saying that the violence will continue as long as Israel does not meet these demands.

Regarding Israel's right to exist, the program does not even mention the name Israel. Instead, it refers to Israel as "The Occupation." It also makes no mention of the two-state solution. Rather, it reiterates the Palestinians' opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state with temporary borders.

Although the document declares that the "key to peace and stability is contingent on ending the occupation of Palestinian lands and recognizing the Palestinian people's right to self-determination," it does not specify which "lands" -- those captured by Israel in 1967 or 1948.

Fatah representatives, of course, argue that the program refers only to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. Hamas, on the other hand, will be able to argue that the phrase "Palestinian lands" applies also to all of Mandatory Palestine.

Referring to the third demand of the Quartet -- abiding by agreements between the PLO and Israel -- the political program states that the new government will only "respect" agreements signed by the PLO.

Hamas leaders have already explained that there is a huge difference between "respecting" an agreement and making a pledge to fulfill it. In other words, Hamas is saying that while it accepts the agreements with Israel as an established fact, it will not carry them out.

Elsewhere in the program, the new government says that it will abide by unspecified U.N. and Arab summit resolutions, leaving the door open for Fatah to claim that this is tantamount to recognizing the two-state solution and all the agreements with Israel. Fatah will cite the 2002 Arab peace plan that implicitly recognizes Israel.

Hamas, on the other hand, can always claim that among the Arab summit resolutions that it intends to abide by is the one taken in Khartoum, Sudan, in September 1967. The resolution contains what became known as "the three no's" of Arab-Israel relations: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

Although the program makes it clear that the PLO, and not the new Hamas-led coalition, will be responsible for conducting negotiations with Israel, it also seeks to tie the hands of President Abbas by stating that any "fateful" agreement must be approved by the Palestinians in the PA-controlled areas and abroad through a referendum.

The program, moreover, closes the door to any potential concessions on the problem of the refugees by emphasizing their "right of return to their lands and property [inside Israel]."

The international community must demand an end to the era of ambiguity and double-talk. If the new government is opposed to terror, there is no reason why it should not state this loudly and clearly.

If it recognizes Israel -- as some of its members claim -- then why not announce this in unequivocal language? The international community must insist that the messages coming out of the Palestinian leaders be the same in both English and Arabic.

There is no point in pouring millions of dollars on the "unity" government as long as it's not prepared to make a clear and firm commitment to halt terror and recognize Israel's right to exist.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. This appeared today in Arutz-Sheva

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, March 19, 2007.

This comes from http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/2

You won't be reading much about this in the mainstream press, because it doesn't involve Israel A Middle Eastern government has announced that it is considering a plan to deport untold thousands of Palestinians from their homes, forcibly uprooting them and compelling them to leave.

It won't be the first time this government has threatened such a move -- in fact, back in 1995, it carried out those threats, and sent numerous Palestinians packing.

But you won't be reading much about this in the mainstream press, nor will you hear nary a peep of protest from much of the left and its sympathizers over the cruelty and brutality of such a move.

And that's because the government in question -- believe it or not -- is Libya, which views this as a form of protest against the policies of the new Palestinian Authority (PA) government.

In fact, the PA is so concerned about the possible Libyan move, that PA Minister for refugee affairs Dr. Atef Adouan went public on the issue, telling the London-based newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi this, "We hope that the Libyan leadership will act wisely and with patience. Deporting the Palestinians from Libya would cause greater suffering to the Palestinian refugees."

Further proof, once again, of the cynical and manipulative manner in which the Arab states continue to exploit the issue of Palestinian refugees -- and of the selective morality of those who criticize Israel on a regular basis.

Contact Avodah at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, March 19, 2007.

Concern has been raised in Israel that Islamic terrorists such as Hamas or Al Qaeda may target the Muslim shrine of the Dome of the Rock or Al Aksa Mosque which both sit atop the site of the Jewish Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The Islamic terrorists would then blame Israel to arouse Muslim anger in order to trigger a war in the Middle East. The subsequent loss of Muslim lives is of little concern to them. On the contrary, they even think this is the best way to get their fellow Muslims into their paradise by making them "Shaheedim" (Martyrs for Islam). We have already seen Shiite and Sunni Muslims target each others' mosques for demolition and that both use their so-called "shrines" for the storage of weapons, explosives and safe houses for their Terrorists. They do, however, expect Americans and Israelis to respect the self-proclaimed sanctity of their mosques and shrines.

Suspicions were raised in light of the frenzied reaction to Israel repairing a crumbling, earth-quake damaged, earthen ramp that leads up to the site of the Temple Mount. They tried to assert that the Dome of the Rock and Al Aksa Mosque were endangered by these repair measures -- a rather ridiculous claim. It was also thought that they were planning to collapse the shaky ramp on top of Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall. They also may have intended to use this excuse to permanently close the Mugrabi gate (the only gate open to non-Muslims) to the Temple Mount so no "infidels" (non-Muslims) could enter.

In this light it is now clear why they always opposed any infrastructure improvements in the area. With an anarchist agenda, they want people to get hurt and are happy to help the process along if it benefits their religious war against the Jews, Christians and all other non-Muslims whom they view as "Infidels" who they must kill.

In fact the Muslim Wakf has been carrying out secret excavations under the Temple Mount to make up and reinforce their own religious claims while disposing of all Jewish artifacts from the First and Second Temple periods of the Jews.

Israeli engineers warned them that they were weakening the supportive walls of the Temple Mount, including the Dome of the Rock and Al Aksa Mosque. A dangerous bulge was spotted on a major retaining wall of the Temple Mount. Yet the Muslim Wakf have continued to undermine the foundations until today.

A moderately small earthquake in February 11, 2004 coupled with the effects of a major snowfall, damaged the Mugrabi ramp leading up to the Temple Mount. Even a small earthquake could collapse the ancient stone walls. Many earthquakes have hit this region which lies on a major fault along the Jordan River called the Dead Sea Rift which runs the length of Israel, creating a series of active faults throughout the country. The area underlying the entire region is a series of major and minor faults under constant pressure to slip or crack, producing major and minor tremblers. [If you wish to explore this further pull up "Earthquake 2004 damage to Mugrabi ramp to Temple Mount" on Google.] This will explain why even a small trembler could collapse the wall of Solomon's Temple Mount now that the Muslim Wakf has dug out the core of the Temple Mount.

It is merely an event waiting to happen.

The other possibility is that the Muslim Arab Terrorists might be preparing to place high explosives on the remaining supports that hold up the Dome of the Rock and Al Aksa Mosque.

Time will tell.

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 winstonmedia@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Zwick, March 19, 2007.

Those that are growing up in the current generation are accustomed to listening to clear, crisp digital music from their CD's, DVD's, MP3 players, and satellite radios. Those of us that were raised in the turbulent years of the Viet Nam War and Yom Kippur War can still recall the static, scratchy noises coming from vinyl LP records. Whenever the phonograph needle encountered a particle of dust or a scratch, the music would be accompanied by irritating noise. Occasionally, the scratch would be deep enough to prevent the phonograph needle from advancing. In that case, the last few words would be repeated continuously until someone picked up the phonograph arm and advanced it manually.

Psychologist Manuel Smith used the analogy of the "broken record" in his bestselling book When I Say No, I Feel Guilty, published in 1975. Dr. Smith's popular book presented a variety of suggestions for using verbal techniques to resolve conflicts, disputes, and disagreements. His first lesson on assertive responses involved verbal persistence, a technique he titled, "Broken Record" which employed continuous repetition of the desired outcome.

Though the book is over 30 years old, much of its advice is still pertinent, and perhaps even more important today then it was then. The current leaders of the State of Israel would be advised to incorporate some of these skills in their diplomatic dealings. The Palestinian Arabs have portrayed themselves as "poor, oppressed, suffering people who are struggling for liberation and self-determination." They condone and excuse their barbaric violence against Israeli civilians as "legitimate resistance operations against the harsh Israeli occupation and aggression." In contrast, the defensive security measures of the Israeli government are repeatedly condemned as "violations of the humanitarian rights of the Palestinian people."

In response to these repeated vilifications by international non-governmental organizations, the Government of Israel should perhaps adopt a simple "broken record" response. To every condemnation of their defensive measures, they should simply respond, "First the Arabs must stop their incitement and violence." Israeli spokesmen would respond to criticism with the following simple statements:

Stop the incitement and violence and there will be no security fence.

Stop the incitement and violence and there will be no checkpoints.

Stop the incitement and violence and there will be no travel restrictions.

Stop the incitement and violence and there will be no military incursions.

Stop the incitement and violence and there will be no targeted killings.

Stop the incitement and violence and there will be no arrests.

Stop the incitement and violence, and then there will be peace, harmony, and tranquility.

Another oft repeated statement is, "The best defense is a good offense." Instead of Israel having to repeatedly defend itself from fallacious accusations, Israel should start going on the offensive and make demands from the Arabs as preconditions for peace negotiations. The following demands should be considered and repeated often:

1. Acceptance. The Arabs must accept that Jews have strong historical, religious, and cultural ties to the Holy Land. Jews have every right to live and establish communities in the environs of Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem, Shechem, Shiloh, and other historical sites. Jews should even have the right to live in Arab countries where they lived for 2000 years until they were forcibly expelled.

2. Recognition of Israel as a Jewish State. On a map of the Middle East, the State of Israel is barely visible. About 6 million Jews live in an area of about 25,000 sq. km. They are surrounded by 22 Arab countries with over 300 million Arabs living in 14 million sq. km. The Arabs must recognize that Israel will remain a Jewish state with a Jewish flag, a Jewish national anthem, Jewish street names, Jewish national holidays, and Jewish schools. Of course, the Arabs living there will still enjoy full democratic and civil rights. Israel will not become a binational Arab and Jewish state. If there are 22 Arab Muslim states, there can be one Jewish state.

3. Negotiation and Compromise. There will always be disputes and disagreements between people sharing the same space. Spouses have disputes, parents and children have disputes, and special interest groups have disputes. In civilized societies, the disputes are resolved by negotiation, compromise, and due process of law to avoid violent conflict. The Arabs must learn to accept negotiation and compromise. They still have not deviated from Yasir Arafat's original demands in the peace talks of July 2000. That is, a) Israel must return to the jagged, indefensible borders of May, 1967 including the division of Jerusalem, b) Israel must dismantle Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, and c) Israel must allow the descendants of the 1948 and 1967 refugees to return to Israel. The Arabs cannot present these demands as a fait accompli. If there is to be a lasting peace, there must be dialogue, negotiation and compromise.

4. Renunciation of Violence. The Arabs must publicly and repeatedly renounce the use of violence from their public forums, schools, mosques, media, and textbooks. Violence and martyrdom should not be glorified as a means for resolving disputes.

5. Reliability and Consistency. When we go into our automobiles we expect them to start up and get us to our destination. If we don't get reliable performance from automobiles, we repair them or dispose of them. We should expect the same from agreements with our neighbors. Mutual agreements must be consistently reliable to maintain trust. To date, the Arabs have not adhered to any agreement made with the State of Israel. To develop trust, Arabs must demonstrate that their agreements are reliable.

These should be the minimal starting points for negotiations between Israel and her Arab neighbors. If the Arabs cannot accept these minimal conditions of civilized society, they should not be given international support.

Manuel Smith was not the only voice of that era to advocate verbal techniques for resolving disputes. The popular country singer, Kenny Rogers, also offered sound advice for avoiding conflict in his two hit songs, The Gambler, and Coward of the County.

They are presented here in crisp, clear, digital sound, so it won't be necessary to pick up the phonograph needle and advance it manually.

Play MP3, Kenny Rogers, The Gambler

Play MP3, Kenny Rogers, Coward of the County

Contact Israel Zwick at his website: http://cnpublications.net This article is archived at
To Go To Top

Posted by Marcel Cousineau, March 19, 2007.

"Since Abbas has estranged himself from the Quarter's demands and the commitment to the Road Map, Israel has nothing to discuss with him. Abbas has colluded with Hamas, and therefore Israel cannot engage in talks with such a Palestinian unity government."

That statement would be true if Israel had a backbone to stand firm and not be so easily led by the ring in her nose. Israel tries to convince the world instead of acting.

Israels serious error has been to let the Quartet determine the agenda for its future instead of leading strong and standing firm.

Weakness always calls out to others to do what Israel should have done long ago.

I don't even think Israel has the will or the sense to defeat this latest and more deadly threat to her existence.

Israel on her deathbed calls upon the Quartet's Dr. Mengele for help and assisted suicide is what Israel shall receive at their hands.

Israel at present under Olmert will allow itself to be pushed wherever the Quartet deems it should be pushed.

The Palestinians know this and are openly moving forward towards their end goal of Israel's destruction without shame or any care. They have been open about their plan and the Quartet is aware of where the Palestinians are going.

It is beyond stupid of Israel to allow this to continue, but without faith in Hashem Israel is rules by fear and continues to make extremely bad decisions. Israel, by playing this peace farce Quartet final solution game, has placed its head in the noose.

What Israel's enemies could not do in war against Israel, President Bush has accomplished by peace.

The trojan horse from a 'friend' has been accepted with open arms and there seems to be no awakening from this 2nd holocaust in the making.

Contact Marcel Cousineau at his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 19, 2007.


Warning that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to take over Egypt and impose an Islamist regime, Pres. Mubarak ordered the arrest of dozens of Brotherhood leaders. His regime's focus was on the wealthy members who finance the organization/Party (IMRA, 2/21).

The crackdowns come in cycles. When Mubarak seeks more support, he releases imprisoned Brotherhood members. When they become a military or political menace, he cracks down. If he stayed on top of them, he wouldn't risk their coming down on him.

He shouldn't be surprised at their current rise. The longer he monopolizes power, the greater the corruption and the more he becomes the focus of discontent. Having marginalized all other opposition, the Brotherhood remains, attracting support from opponents who have nowhere else to go. That they are making a Faustian bargain does not occur to them.

He makes the danger from them seem the danger of Islamism. This may persuade the US he is in the right. However, his regime is Islamist, too. He has imposed Islamism gradually. By allowing Islamist education, he fertilizes the Islamist movement against which he now is fighting to retain power. He is no friend of the US nor of civilization.


Judea and Samaria are disputed territories. The EU subsidizes organizations within Israel that agitate against the Jewish claim to them. This interference is neo-colonialism. (I don't know if it is that, but it is dangerous meddling.)

European governments finance Peace Now, B'Tselem, and the Peres Center. (If Israel were democratic, the nationalists would be able to denounce those governments for interference and those groups for being foreign agents.)

The EU subsidizes the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, which promotes anti-Israel boycotts and divestment. (It opposes demolition of houses built illegally by Arabs or used by terrorism, not houses legally owned by Jews.) Other financing opposes various Israeli self-defense measures. (None I have heard of support groups opposed to Arab aggression.)

European financing of subversion in Israel is extensive and mostly hidden. It should be publicized and denounced more than the one time Israel did (Prof. Steven Plaut, 2/21 from Gerald Steinberg). Surprising. The government is just as subversive. But it wants to give up on its own time scale.

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@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, March 19, 2007.

Israeli Intelligence has concluded that Israeli Arabs (those who live inside Israel's territories) are a significant danger should they arise "en masse". Imagine that!

While that has been predicted for years, with no surprise, Israel has another internal and even greater danger. They come in different categories and titles but, for all intents and purposes, let's call them "The Left".

This is an amalgam of people who believe that Jews do not belong in Israel and that Arab Muslims do. These various Jewish groups assist the Israeli Arabs and those called Palestinians who live in adjoining areas to support claims of prior ownership, despite the fact that most worked the Land as tenant farmers for sheiks in Syria and elsewhere abroad. This would include the seven cities given over to control of the Palestinian Authority by the Oslo Accords as Nablus (ancient Schehem), Bet'Lehem (later a city inhabited by Christians, now the Christians are driven out by the Muslims), Jenin, Qalquilya, Ram'Allah and Gaza (which has been made "Judenrein" by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert) and the Leftists of Israel.

There are many self-styled Jewish organizations, hostile to Judaism, whose members do not believe in the rights of Jews to the Land. It would difficult to list them all and their "accomplishments" in merely a few pages. We have seen them, the Machsom Women in Black harassing soldiers at checkpoints. Many would act as an impediment to soldiers who are either breaking up riots or assembling to go to their units at the front. A few other oxymoron "titles" come to mind such as Peace Now, Gush Shalom, New Israel Fund, Rabbis for Human Rights, B'tselem and others.

The Supreme Court's Leftist bias was built up under Chief Justice Aharon Barak and now under the new Chief Justice Dorit Benish. I often think that some of our people have a gene missing in their DNA which calls them to national suicide.

The JNF (Jewish National Fund) is presently funding Arabs out of funds donated by Jewish donors who thought their charitable contributions were planting trees, building reservoirs in order to strengthen and green-up the Jewish State for Jewish sovereignty and right to life.

One must include a host of government officials such as Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Bibi Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert through the Kadima Party who negotiated detrimental weakening agreements, mostly in secret, without consulting the Knesset. Each in his time worked diligently to undercut the bonds of Jewish identity, education and Jewish bonds to the Land of the Jewish State and her ideals as the world's only Jewish State as a refuge for persecuted Jews. Not surprisingly, the nations who persecuted their Jews over the centuries agreed that the Jews didn't deserve their own State and they did every thing possible to add another Arab Muslim State to the 21 Muslim Arab States already existing.

We do not need to worry about an uprising of Israeli Arabs acting as a "Fifth Column" subverting the Jewish State of Israel, given that we have our own home-grown "Fifth Column" of Leftist Jews which is desperate to return (so to speak) to the safe slavery and flesh-pots of Egypt. You do recall how many of these reluctant Jewish slaves Moses led out of bondage who begged to return to Egyptian slavery because, like trained dogs used to being fed daily by their masters, they also wanted to be fed daily. Many of them were the "Erev Rav", mixed multitude trash who left with the Jews and Moses to escape from Egypt but who weren't ready to build a country and a people.

Regrettably, that trash is still present in the Jewish State only now they call themselves "Leftists". Today those same Jew-hating Jews are still with us, believing in nothing let alone the right to stand up on their own two legs and be masters of their own destiny. We needn't fear the uprising of the Arab Muslim Palestinians living among us. We're prepared to defend ourselves against the hostile Arab Muslims. However, most of the time, it's the "Fifth Column" of Leftists inside of our own gut that chews on us. If the Leftists cannot return to the fleshpots of Egypt, they are perfectly willing to turn themselves over to the Muslims to be ruled if left alive.

We should, however, fear the uprising of those rude beasts called "Leftists" who have already arisen to snap at the heels of Jews who believe in the Land and their return to what was always ours because G-d gave it to us.

The pack of curs called "Leftists" have worked hard to subvert Observant Jews and those who work the Land, knowing it is theirs by right and by G-d's promise and through their own blood, sweat, tears and hard-earned savings.

War is surely coming again -- for which the Arab Muslim nations and proxy Terrorists are arming prodigiously. Both the Israeli Arab Muslims, along with the Leftists, would surely feel more at home with their own kind. Gathering them up to be transferred to the towns and cities controlled by Fatah/Hamas or in Egypt, Syria, Jordan or Lebanon which would be a generous blessing to them. If they dislike the Jews and the Jewish State so much, perhaps they should be given the chance to join their own brethren in the countries from which they or their families emigrated. Many with the money are already doing so on their own. They know they'll feel more at home with their own people or to escape to Eurabia where they bring with them all they are escaping from, namely Islam.

As for the Jewish Leftists, surely, they would be welcomed by those Arab Muslims in the neighboring States who hate the Jews and the Jewish State. Those Leftists must sincerely believe that returning to the flesh-pots of Egypt is their true destiny.


I call your attention to a similar article following, written by David Bedein, entitled "Israel's Fifth Column" which delves further into the hostile groups within Israel.

"Israel's Fifth Column"
By David Bedein
March 16, 2007

There are more than one million Israeli Arabs -- more than 15 percent of Israel's population. These Israeli citizens have shown widespread support for Iran, causing the Israeli security establishment to worry. Israel's General Security Service (GSS), the Israeli equivalent of the FBI, has warned about an alarming increase of subversive activity on behalf of Iran by Israel's Arab minority.

This past week, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs issued a report entitled "Iran Is Building 'Hamastan' in Gaza," which documents how Iran is establishing a base in nearby Gaza, premised on "a growing strategic alliance between Iran and the radical Palestinian forces..."

It has not been forgotten that the PLO, the harbinger of local Arab revolution, was the first sponsor of the successful Iranian revolution. Iran was the first and only Islamic nation ever to hand over an Israeli embassy to the PLO. And Iran now emerges as the greatest champion of Palestinian Arab Islamic nationalism.

Last summer, the elected officials of the Israeli Arab members of the Israeli Knesset Parliament showed support for Hezbollah's missile attacks on Israel. Since then, Israel's security establishment has launched its own investigation of Israel's Arab minority.

Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with GSS Director Yuval Diskin and other high-ranking security officials concerning the Arab minority in Israel, where the GSS provided a report to the Prime Minister concerning the continual decline in its identification with the state, the rise of subversive elements within it and the dangers that lie therein. Some high-ranking security officials said that the turn of events within the Arab minority constituted "the real, long term strategic threat" to the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state.

The GSS reports there has been a rise in the Israeli Arabs' identification with the Palestinian terrorist organizations, and a rise in their identification with Iran, Hezbollah and other groups that reject the legitimacy of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. All of this is done publicly and openly, and has been accompanied by incitement by the local Israeli Arab political leadership. That incitement has not been yet been dealt with by Israel's law enforcement community. The GSS assessment indicates that the separatist and subversive trends that are reflected by the Israeli Arab leadership are liable to set the agenda and sweep the masses behind them.

One American organization that provides financial help to the Israeli Arab community to develop itself as a "Palestinian religious and national ethnic community" is the New Israel Fund. The GSS is now looking into the work of the NIF to determine whether this outside organization is an element that encourages subversive activity amongst the Israeli Arab population.


68% of the Jewish population in Israel fears the possibility that Israeli Arabs will begin a popular rebellion, while 63% do not enter Arab communities in Israel, according to a new poll issued this week by Haifa University. Meanwhile, 64.4% of Israeli Jewish citizens fear that the Arab citizens endanger national security because of their high birth rate, while 83.1% fear Israeli Arabs support of the Palestinians' struggle and 73% believe that most of the Arab citizens will be more loyal to the state of Palestine than to the state of Israel.

Clearly the Israeli Fifth Column is hard at work trying to tear the country apart -- and Iran is more than happy to help.

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 winstonmedia@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, March 18, 2007.

This comes from The Associated Press -- 18/03/2007 -- and was published on www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/839095.html It is archived on IMRA's -- Independent Media Review and Analysis -- website: www.imra.org.il

Egyptian troops killed dozens, if not hundreds of captured Israel Defense Forces soldiers in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, according excerpts of an Israeli TV documentary screened Sunday, responding to charges that IDF forces killed captured Egyptian prisoners of war during the 1967 Six-Day War.

Channel 10 TV showed parts of interviews with IDF soldiers who served in the 1973 conflict, relating specific cases in which they said Egyptian forces killed soldiers who had been captured or had surrendered.

The channel said its documentary was a response to the outcry over a different program shown earlier this month on Israeli TV about the 1967 conflict.

Egyptian media said that the program showed that IDF forces executed 250 captured Egyptian soldiers sparked widespread outrage in Egypt and a crisis in relations between the two countries, which signed a peace treaty in 1978.

The documentary producer denied that his film made such an allegation. Participants said the 250 were armed Palestinian fighters killed in a battle, but senior Egyptian officials demanded an investigation.

In the 1973 war, Israeli forces were caught by surprise in a two-front lighting attack by Egyptian and Syrian armies. Thousands of IDF soldiers on the front lines were killed, wounded or captured.

The Channel 10 documentary showed film of what it said were IDF soldiers, their hands bound behind their backs, shot to death in the Golan Heights and the Sinai desert.

Defense correspondent Alon Ben-David concluded, "Investigations of the Egyptian army's behavior in wars against Israel will find dozens, if not hundreds, of cases of captured Israeli soldiers murdered in cold blood by their Egyptians captors."

Egyptian government officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

One of the ex-soldiers, Issachar Ben-Gavriel, said he witnessed one of the incidents. He said he was one of a group of 19 IDF soldiers who surrendered at the Suez Canal, flying white flags and raising their hands.

"They (Egyptians) just shot them," he said, "11 guys."

Another Israeli who fought in the 1973 war, Eitan Mor-Gan, said he was in a group of captured soldiers who were lined up against a wall. Mor-Gan said before opening fire at them, an Egyptian officer told the soldiers, "I will kill whoever stays on the ground. Whoever manages to get up will be saved."

In another case, an ex-soldier told of a fighter in his unit who was captured alive but beaten to death during interrogation.

Ben-David said the interviews were done during a visit by the ex-soldiers to the sites of the Sinai desert battles, which have been turned into museums by the Egyptians.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 18, 2007.

These items come from the DEBKAfile.

"Israeli Arabs caught fighting with al Qaeda in Iraq"
March 18, 2007, 10:32 PM (GMT+02:00)
Notorious al Qaeda stronghold of Haifa Street, Baghdad

Captured in Baghdad Saturday, March 17, were two -- some sources say three -- Israeli Arabs, who told their American interrogators they came from the northern Israeli village of Majd al Krum near Carmiel, northeast of Haifa. They were taken prisoner fighting in the central Baghdad district of Bab al Moadham, near the notorious insurgent stronghold of Haifa Street, together with Abu Qetada al Falastini, deputy al Qaeda commander in Iraq.

DEBKAfile's counter-terror sources report that al Falastini's real name is Mahmoud al Madi and he hails from the West Bank town of Nablus.

The Israeli Arabs captured with him formed his inner personal command. Ahead of the new US-led security crackdown in Baghdad ordered by President George W. Bush, al Qaeda pulled its top local commanders out of the city and out of range. It is not clear why the Palestinian group did not join them.

Western intelligence services and agencies engaged in the war on al Qaeda were taken aback by the discovery of Israel Arabs in al Qaeda's Iraqi ranks, although they had long ago spotted the veteran Abu Qetada who joined the jihadist movement in 1992. After years spent at training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he came to Iraq in 2004 to fight alongside Abu Musab al Zarqawi. After he was killed by the Americans, the Palestinian was appointed his successor's deputy.

The Israeli Arabs told their captors that two or three years ago they went to study at fundamentalist Muslim medressas in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they were recruited by al Qaeda. They are believed to have reached Iraq last year with orders from Pakistan to find Abu Qetada and fight the Americans under his command.

Sunday, March 18, al Qaeda in Iraq issued a communiqu denying that any of its chiefs had been detained in Baghdad, without mentioning any names.

"Israel farmers stop aerial crop-spraying near Gaza because of smuggled Palestinian anti-air missiles"
March 18, 2007, 9:45 PM (GMT+02:00)

The transport ministry in Jerusalem warned the farmers Sunday, March 18, that the Palestinians had recently smuggled shoulder-borne SA-7 anti-air missiles into the Gaza strip. They ordered an immediate halt to aerial crop-spraying near the territory following an Israeli army caution.

"New Palestinian government marks collapse of Israel's Middle East positions"
March 18, 2007, 10:10 AM (GMT+02:00)

The Hamas-Fatah government taking office Sunday, March 18, is more than a policy failure by prime minister Ehud Olmert and foreign minister Tzipi Livni; it is another milestone on the road to the collapse of Israel's Middle East positions at large, on a scale comparable to the setback to its deterrence from the mismanaged war against Hizballah last summer.

This fiasco is reflected in the horrified outcry across the board, from members of the Olmert government coalition and the opposition alike, as Israelis woke up Sunday, March 18, to face a hostile Palestinian government led by a terrorist organization, godfathered by Saudi Arabia, armed by Iran, and blessed by Western powers.

Exactly a week ago, on March 11, the Israeli prime minister said he was positively reviewing sections of the Saudi Arabian 2002 "peace plan." He did not waver when Riyadh declared the hard-line text would not be modified when it is re-launched at the Arab summit in ten days' time.

That afternoon, Olmert had his second interview with Mahmoud Abbas, chairman of the Palestinian Authority and leader of Fatah. He stressed the importance of "staying in touch with positive Palestinian elements." This was also Livni's mantra during her recent travels to the US and European capitals.

They both fell into the Palestinian trap, effectively sanctioning the seal of moderation with which Abbas and Fatah stamped a Palestinian government dominated by the Hamas terrorists.

Even more dangerously, the two Israeli leaders failed to question the covert Yalta-type understanding reached by Riyadh and Tehran. They ought to have grasped that when the Saudis and Iranians stuck their deal to preserve the Siniora government in Lebanon, as DEBKAfile revealed in late February, they must also have come to terms on the Palestinian issue.

And so they did. It was a package: Tehran called off the campaign led by its patsy Hizballah against the anti-Syrian Lebanese government, gaining stronger representation -- at Syria's expense, while the rival Palestinian factions were told in Mecca to share power -- at Israel's expense.

Olmert and Livni forgot a permanent Middle East axiom: Israel's neighbors can always set aside their differences for common action against the Jewish state. Therefore, Sunni princes and Shiite clerics easily agreed on a Palestinian formula that would imperil Israel's most vital interests.

They figured that, just as Syrian president Bashar Assad is too isolated to challenge his dependence on Tehran, so too Israel is too dependent on Washington to complain about Saudi under-the-table transactions with Iran for the sake of a deal on Iraq.

In the past year, Olmert-Livni policies have been so closely synchronized with Washington's, that many of Israel's vital interests have gone by the board.

It was their vain hope that Arab governments in fear of Iran's ambitions would come to terms with Israel and move the Middle East closer to peace. This misreading was shared by opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu. What happened instead was that the so-called moderate Arab camp stood aside when Tehran focused its attention on building up the menace to Israel on the backs of the now-kosher Palestinian radicals.

Iran not only gave them arms, ordnance, cash and training, but also strategic depth. Its Revolutionary Guards have spread their wings into Gaza through Sinai up to the Suez and Mediterranean, and built up a war menace to Israel from the south, as well as the north. The realistic prospect is therefore closer to war rather than peace, the culmination of a process which the prime minister, his foreign minister and their advisers consistently missed or misread.

Addressing the Washington pro-Israel lobby AIPAC's annual conference last week, Olmert and Livni both came out in support of the Bush administration's military strategy in Iraq. Since that strategy hinges largely on covert Saudi-Iranian diplomacy in Washington's name, Israeli government spokesmen implicitly gave America a blank check to pay for an Iraq accommodation at Israel's expense.

"Al Qaeda's dirty chlorine bomb warfare may well spread from Iraq's Anbar across the Middle East"
March 18, 2007, 1:06 PM (GMT+02:00)

Iraq has seen six poison gas attacks in six weeks.

DEBKAfile's military and counter-terror sources warn that al Qaeda may well expand its chemical war to other parts of the Middle East. Chlorine is readily available, used widely everywhere to purify water and in industry.

Saturday, March 17, three suicide bombers blew up their chlorine-filled tankers in three of al Qaeda's hotbeds in the western Iraqi Anbar province: Falluja, Amiria and Ramadi. According to US figures, two Iraqi policemen were killed and 356 victims, including 6 American servicemen, taken to hospital. Unofficially, eight people died and 500 suffered toxic symptoms.

The first blast struck an American roadblock northeast of Ramadi, injuring two US soldiers. The second occurred in the early evening at Amiria, 17 km south of Falluja, killing two Iraqi policemen and causing choking symptoms in 120 local inhabitants.

Half an hour later, the third suicide truck bomber detonated his toxic cargo at Albu Issa, south of Falluja, causing the largest number of casualties -- 6 dead and nearly 300 injured -- some of them seriously. This blast was the biggest of the three. It used 200 gallons of chlorine gas. DEBKAfile reports al Qaeda targeted the local Sunni Albu Issa tribe which recently agreed to work with the Baghdad government and US forces to fight al Qaeda and drive them out.

Al Qaeda's first gas bomb attack took place on Jan. 28 in Ramadi. A number of small trucks carrying small quantities of chlorine gas were detonated simultaneously killing 16 people and putting an unknown number in hospital.

On Feb. 20, a second chemical attack was staged in Baghdad, killing 5 and poisoning 120, The next day, Feb. 21, a chlorine truck exploded in Taji north of Baghdad, killing 9 people and injuring more than 150.

That same day, coalition forces discovered and destroyed two chlorine bomb factories in Karma and Fallujah. Karma has increasingly become a hot spot in Anbar province.

That raid forced al Qaeda to take a break from its poison gas campaign in Iraq between Feb. 21 and March 17.

"Incoming Palestinian PM Haniyeh vows to uphold "all forms of resistance" to Israel as he presents new Hamas-Fatah government"
March 17, 2007, 9:45 PM (GMT+02:00)

Mahmoud Abbas urged an end of the world boycott against the Palestinian government although Middle East Quartet conditions are ignored in its platform.

The unity government he has launched with Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh won a vote of confidence at the Palestinian legislative council Saturday, March 17. The US and European governments have already set up contacts. Norway was the first Western goernment to re-establish political and economic ties.

Washington will invite Salim Fayad in his capacity as the PLO's financial adviser -- but not as Palestinian finance minister, so long as the unity government withholds recognition from Israel and a guarantee to end violence. Israel will maintain contact with Mahmoud Abbas alone; there will be no other form of cooperation with a Palestinian government that refuses to accept these Middle East Quartet's terms.

The UK will maintain working contacts with non-Hamas ministers. Later Saturday, the Palestinian legislative council votes confidence in the new 24-member government. Its signatories, Mahmoud Abbas and Ismail Haniya, Hamas, as designated prime minister, will outline its platform.

Vice PM Shimon Peres said Saturday that Israel rejects absolutely as "suicidal" the Palestinian demand for the "right of return," which is also incorporated in the Saudi peace plan to be re-launched at the coming Arab summit March 28. He said the Fatah-Hamas accord binds Israel to nothing. "For peace, they must talk to us. The Europeans can't talk for Israel."

He confirmed that Abbas failed to make good on his pledge to procure the release of the Israeli soldier, kidnapped by Hamas-led raiding party last June, before the new Palestinian government was set up. The issue remains as unresolved as before.

DEBKAfile notes: One putative "independent," the designated foreign minister Ziyad Amar, is a known Hamas adherent. Pro-American Salam Fayed is retained as finance minister as bait to draw US recognition and international assistance.

Abbas and Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh (who retains the post) worked against the stopwatch to get their Saudi-brokered unity act together in time for the Riyadh Arab summit on March 28.

If anything, Abbas lost points; any agreements or deals he may conclude with Israel will be subject to ratification by the Palestinian national assembly which has a Hamas majority of a national referendum. But because the unity deal is in the bag, the Palestinians will be represented at the Arab summit this month by a Hamas prime minister

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, March 18, 2007.

From Jerusalem Post Staff, The Jerusalem Post, Mar. 18, 2007
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879109032&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The new Palestinian Authority government is a Hamas government in every way," MK Gidon Sa'ar (Likud) said on Sunday morning, adding, "Fatah has surrendered to Hamas."

In an interview with Israel Radio, Sa'ar stressed that Hamas was still a major terror group, noting that the weapons flow to Gaza had increased six-fold in the last year.

"We need to stop this arms flow," said Sa'ar. "We don't want another inquiry commission following another conflict we were unprepared for."

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, March 18, 2007.

The United States will remain the world's dominant superpower as long as the U.S. dollar maintains its worldwide status as premier reserve and primary oil trading currency. Period!!! Nations likely to challenge the dollar's lofty position in the not too distant future, with their respective currencies, are China and Japan, in the farther future perhaps a one currency South America if the anti-Israel/Jew Hugo Chavez and his friends keep surging and influencing, however, today's most formidable challenger is the European Union, to be substantially fortified when and if Great Britain and Norway come on board, agreeing to adopt the euro. The United States, indeed, under the stewardship of the Bush Administration, has thrown monetary caution to the wind, directing sizable and expensive troop deployments first into Afghanistan, then compounding that initiative exponentially by possibly committing itself to a long-term military involvement and investment in Iraq, initially justified by the popularly touted weapons of mass destruction pretext. No doubt, the Afghanistan deployment was effectuated in order to smash Osama bin Laden and his Al-Quaeda forces, fresh from perpetrating their 9/11 'in your face America' carnage, ever welcome to break pita and finance their jihadist ambitions with misogynist Taliban warlord drug pushers. However, the likely primary impetus for invading Iraq, as well as setting up permanent bases within that sovereign nation, was to insure an energy future, allied to a friendly government, squatting over the second largest fossil fuel reserves on the planet. That is the sort of things superpowers do in order to maintain their status.

Other factors prompting that decision were likely a need to remove U.S. forces from strategically located Saudi Arabia, its royal family threatened by jihadist forces to evict the infidel from holy ground or else, as well as Sadist Hussein's hubristic disrespect for the petrodollar, daring to trade his oil for euros, a line in the desert crossed only by impulsive tyrants with a death wish. Still, just because a superpower, no longer leashed to a gold standard, can print its currency at will to pay for aggressive foreign policies, its leaders unwilling to tax constituents heretofore coddled by the concept of a seductive free lunch, such a modus operandi is not necessarily wise or even sustainable. Indeed, foreign bankers holding mucho greenbacks and U.S. debt notes may not be at all pleased, witnessing such profligacy by the planet's premier debtor albeit superpower nation. Furthermore, euros in recent years have been kicking the butts of Uncle Sam's minted dead presidents, and foreign bankers with no collective conscience or loyalty to anything other than profit, may very well decide to jilt America's most essential psychologically valued export, its beauty ever fading, dumping it precipitously on the market for perhaps a Continental bride, bringing nothing but tsuris to Wall Street and Main Street, stalwart pillars of a consequentially stunned goliath with shaky knees. At this point, even the powerful petrodollar would begin ceding its throne worldwide to perhaps a petroeuro, while the sun rapidly sets on modern day Rome.

Not so fast. Lets not prematurely declare R.I.P. to an empire, perhaps speeding towards a cliff overlooking 'catastrophe canyon', yet still able to apply the brakes with a host of solutions. Furthermore, there are more Neville Chamberlain than Winston Churchill kindred spirits in today's Europe, military budgets overall have shrunk while Islamic militants continue to metastasize through the bowels of that continent in denial, the euro could certainly take a licking if and when the ticking jihad time bomb explodes, and any imagined coronation of a century twenty-one style Continental Caesar, awash in euros, could just as easily become a coroner's inquest of a corpse drained of ancestral blood, tossed like a Caesar salad, garnished with jihadist cretins.

The State of Israel, of course, would be affected by any seismic shifts in a planetary balance of power, thus should reinforce its own foundation, making it as earthquake proof as possible. Solidifying the strength of its shekel by attracting more foreign investors like Warren Buffet and Donald Trump, further advancing a state of the art technology sector, enhancing the quality of first world educational institutions, maximizing employment opportunities, insuring first rate health care for all citizens, maintaining infrastructure, and no doubt revitalizing a military/intelligence establishment that must be world class, is ever necessary, and all this must be accomplished without relying on the psychological value of its national currency, as alas its most formidable ally has so carelessly done. No one knows what the future holds, but wise nations prepare for all eventualities.

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. 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 luniglicht@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, March 18, 2007.

Jonathan Pollard relayed the following comments from FCI Butner, North Carolina, in response to the recent FBI smear. See news item "FBI Misportrayal of Pollard Smears Jews" for details.

"I have warned for the last 22 years that this organization, the FBI, is extremely anti-Semitic. Apart from being anti-Israel, they are extremely anti-Semitic. Institutionally they pose a clear and present danger to the viability of the American Jewish community.

"I have tried for years to tell people that a major thrust of the interrogation that the FBI performed was to attempt to coerce me into implicating AIPAC and the ADL. That was a persistent theme in their interrogation. The lists of Jews that they showed me, and from which I was repeatedly asked to finger "co-conspirators", were exhaustive in their scope. The lists included every single Jewish legislator on both the State and Federal level; academicians; business men; and Jewish leaders of all types. This was not a list of Jews that had been put together just for my interrogation. It was clearly a list of prominent Jews that the FBI had compiled over decades.

"To think that this organization doesn't have an anti-Jewish agenda is literally to dismiss all of the evidence that is openly available. The former deputy director Bill Gavin who just smeared all Jews by making a statement to Fox News, insidiously linking me with a jihadi terrorist spy, is the same guy who was the driving force behind the current assault on AIPAC. His comment making this invidious equation between me and a Moslem terrorist spy clearly shows where these people are coming from. They are not concerned with American security per se, as much as they are with destroying the American Jewish community's political viability in Washington. In that respect, the FBI hates Jews more than they love America.

"The FBI were the ones who down-played the murder of Rabbi Kahane because he was "just a troublesome Jew." In so doing, they overlooked the link to the first World Trade Center bombing and ultimately to 9/11. Their anti-Semitism resulted in the deaths of 3000 Americans.

"The FBI's continuing refusal to allow Arabic-speaking Jews to act as translators of material obtained in wire-taps, again shows just how much they hate Jews, rather than evidencing any concern for national security. Moslems may act as translators for the FBI, but Jews may not. There is a clear line here. To continue to ignore it is to do so at the Jewish community and Israel's own peril."

See Also:
* FBI Misportrayal of Pollard Smears Jews: Justice4JPnews
* CNN: Former U.S. Navy sailor arrested on terror charges

Contact Justice For Jonathan Pollard by email at justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 18, 2007.

This comes from the Storm Report website and is archived at
http://the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com/2007/03/ storm-track-appeasement-beer-yes.html

Back in 2004, the well known dhimmicat and terrorist apologist and appeaser, Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii warned army generals in 2004 that Israeli-made bullets purchased by the U.S. Army should be used for training only, not to fight Muslim guerrillas in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since the Army has other stockpiled ammunition, "by no means, under any circumstances should a round [from Israel] be utilized," Abercrombie.

Has he slithered away in embarrassment from his controversial proclamation? Nope. Like every useful idiot, proven wrong he redoubles his efforts. Atlas Shrugs reports that in a vote to suspend aid to Hamas, there was one lone NO VOTE -- Rep. Abercrombie. He also was one of 8 members who voted "No" on this summer's House resolution defending Israel's right to defend itself against Hezbollah.

Alright, just another liberal nut case voted in by the clueless majority in a sate even more left than California -- both politically and geographically. So what harm can t his putz do?

A lot. You see, he's the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Armed Services subcommittee with jurisdiction over land forces. He is also a member of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Which makes him a very dangerous dhimmicrat.

Meanwhile, under the noses of our politically correct leaders in Congress,

US troops and Iraqis Share Taste for Israeli Beer.
(from http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=534)

A close inspection of photos from inside the Mosul villa where Qusay and Uday were shot dead by American troops last month reveals beer bottles and a candy wrapper with what looks suspiciously like Hebrew lettering. Ironically, Saddam Hussein's sons and grandson may have spent their last hours consuming the products of the hated Zionist state. In another odd twist, the troops of the US 101st airborne division may have cracked open beer of the same Macabbee brand while laying Saddam's heirs to siege.

The sudden demand in Iraq for Israeli six-packs owes much to the dearth of beer manufacturing in the strictly Muslim Persian Gulf region and the dry heat raging in Baghdad, Tikrit, Mosul and Basra, which makes an iced beer a favorite thirst-quencher for the close to 150,000 American GIs and 15,000 British troops sweltering there in full combat gear. Many Iraqis, too, have taken advantage of the new openness to their geographical west and cultivated a taste for the Israeli brew. To meet the demand, trucks, loaded with beer produced in Israeli breweries working round the clock, roll nearly 1,000 miles east night by night, through Jordan and over two frontiers.

The free market wins again in spite of the liberal socialist useful idiots.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Zalmi, March 18, 2007.

A family friend from Belgium stopped by over Purim and I asked him where he would be going for Pesach. For the past several years he has taken the whole family to Israel. I was therefore very surprised when he answered: "Turkey".

The surprise turned to shock when he told me that a large number of Antwerp families were going to Turkey for Pesach this year. After he left, the surprise that turned to shock, then turned to little less than revulsion at the thought of Jewish kids sitting around a Seder table in the Moslem capital of Europe.

It's bad enough to see Israelis travelling to Egypt for Pesach. But these are mainly secular folk for whom it's more of a holiday than a holyday. Here we are talking about strictly orthodox families who -- for what I must assume is a small saving on a hotel package -- are prepared to trade the purity of their eternal capital Jerusalem for the squalor of a Muslim Kasbah.

What on earth has become of our people who, for 2,000 years have yearned for Jerusalem only to pass it up for a caterer's discount in Ankara.

I often think of my father gazing out the window of his freezing barrack in Auschwitz and how he and thousands of other inmates must have dreamed and yearned for the warmth and security of Eretz Yisrael.

What if someone told him that 60 years later, Eretz Yisrael would be an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital. That it would have the most powerful economy and army in the Middle East, with world-class kosher hotels to cater for all tastes on the three annual festivals. And that it would cost just a few hundred dollars a ticket to fly there any day of the week.

His face would have beamed in wonderment that the struggle in Europe and the slaughter of 6 million of his people would not, after all, have been for nothing.

So what do you think he would say to the Antwerp families today, many of whose grandparents were survivors of the Shoah ?

I wish them a lot of luck when they open the door for Elijah.

It may well be Mohammed that walks in.

And it will serve them right.


It's always possible that Turkey represents a refreshing change for Antwerp's Jews when you consider what is happening in Belgium. This piece in the Washington Times is a real eye-opener. To read it, click here.

Contact Zalmi at zalmi@zalmi.net or go to his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Arieh King, March 18, 2007.

If you will be visiting Israel in the near future, I would be happy to provide material about the post-Zionist political people who now control the UJA and JNF. I can, in addition, take you on a tour of JNF land where there are numerous Arab homes and even an Arab school; None of them are, of course paying rent to the JNF.

There is even JNF property in the ancient walled city of Jerusalem occupied by Arabs.

This is a crime against the Jewish people.

I am adding two letters which I received from Jews in the U.S. Jews must wake up before it is too late

If you are visting Israel, i will be happy to let you read with me the all information that i have about the JNF & UJA that are today are controlled by post-zionist political persons.

I will be happy also to take you to a tour to see lands belong to JNF with Arabs living on.

I can also take you to a land belong to JNF were there is a Arab school, Do you think one. one of them is paying a rent to JNF?

Ho! And there is also houses in the Old City of Yerushalaim...and guess what? guess who is living in the house?

I am telling you it's a crime against the Jewish nation!

I am sending two letters that i received from two people from US.

Jews must wake up before it will be too late!

First letter about the UJA:


I am shocked to hear that you favor using Jewish Agency funds, collected from Jews from all over the world for Zionist and Jewish uses, to give to Arabs. If this is true, I will no longer give money to the agency until I am assured that it is going to Jews for the purposes of building up the Jewish state.

The Arab citizens of Israel should never expect to receive this aide as they used to understand that Israel is a Jewish state. If they want to live in an Arab state they have many choices. Jews don't. How many Arab states even allow Jews to live as equals there, let alone giving them money?

This is just another way that Arabs will steal from Jews, with Jewish collaborators being all too willing to enable them to go about further stealing our country from us.

If you no longer represent the Jewish people, you should step down from your offices.

This has nothing to do with equality of treatment, but everything to do with Jewish self-hatred.

I will be notifying my local Federation that all future checks from me will be cancelled until Jewish recipients can be assured.

Cathy Sherman, Arizona

Second letter about the JNF:

Reading this one wonders how Olmert has not been impeached or imprisoned. The man is a menace and a fraud and a coward. Even if he is pressured 100%, he could get the story to the newspaper, the people would scream, and he could say it is "too controversial" to allow the Moslems to build on the land that was to be used for a synagogue. What a horror he is. On the road to Mecca, in Saudi Arabia, there is a sign warning "infidels" that continuing further on that road would mean death. After the Arabs gain the surrounding buildings, and the access to the Temple Mount, a similar sign might go up, this in the most revered spot for Jews in Jerusalem. Disgusting!!

The Jewish National Fund should be objecting BIG TIME to such happenings. The JNF should be BUYING AND PRESERVING this land before it is in Moslem hands. The millions of trees JNF has planted in Israel will count for little if Jerusalem is lost to the Moslems.

Contact Arieh King at kingshir@bezeqint.net

To Go To Top

Posted by American, March 18, 2007.

1) Commit the crimes on your own kids (human bombs, human shields or killing their own kids in order to stage it as in 'Muhammad al Dura' & other kids) and always blame the Zionist victim.

2) How to unite the Arab world, bring about "Dead Arab kids", Hezbollah picked up on that very fast.

3) The bastion of (fake) excuse for Islamists' crimes against humanity.

4) The phenomenon of "brown" Arabs Kissing up to "white" Hitler, Hitlerists, never mind what one wishes the other.

5) Inventing big drama words, such as "apartheid", "racism" for those daring to stand up against Racist, Fascist terrorists.

6) The lucky invention of the 1960's, One of the 21 century successful lies, such as "palestinian people" (on the Arab group mostly grandkids of immigrants from surrounding countries).

7) The `creme de la creme' best "export" of "palestinian" industry, the human shields tactics of course (to Iraq's Al-Sadr, Talibans, Hezbullah, etc.).

8] The death cult that always finds somebody to kill, if not the Zionists, or their kids via tactics that the media might blame the IDF, they find each other to practice it with (civil war).

9) when simple lies don't work, edit videos to fit the propaganda, PALLYWOOD, "palestinian" fake Images industry. The Second Draft
YouTube -- Pallywood -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys

10) Self infliction especially on their kids in order to perpertuate `victimhood', the more miserable they can appear on international arena the more their hate hunger for demonizing Israel is satisified, that's their oxygen.

Contact American at American1627@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, March 18, 2007.

The United States will remain the world's dominant superpower as long as the U.S. dollar maintains its worldwide status as premier reserve and primary oil trading currency. Period!!! Nations likely to challenge the dollar's lofty position in the not too distant future, with their respective currencies, are China and Japan, in the farther future perhaps a one currency South America if the anti-Israel/Jew Hugo Chavez and his friends keep surging and influencing, however, today's most formidable challenger is the European Union, to be substantially fortified when and if Great Britain and Norway come on board, agreeing to adopt the euro. The United States, indeed, under the stewardship of the Bush Administration, has thrown monetary caution to the wind, directing sizable and expensive troop deployments first into Afghanistan, then compounding that initiative exponentially by possibly committing itself to a long-term military involvement and investment in Iraq, initially justified by the popularly touted weapons of mass destruction pretext. No doubt, the Afghanistan deployment was effectuated in order to smash Osama bin Laden and his Al-Quaeda forces, fresh from perpetrating their 9/11 'in your face America' carnage, ever welcome to break pita and finance their jihadist ambitions with misogynist Taliban warlord drug pushers. However, the likely primary impetus for invading Iraq, as well as setting up permanent bases within that sovereign nation, was to insure an energy future, allied to a friendly government, squatting over the second largest fossil fuel reserves on the planet. That is the sort of things superpowers do in order to maintain their status.

Other factors prompting that decision were likely a need to remove U.S. forces from strategically located Saudi Arabia, its royal family threatened by jihadist forces to evict the infidel from holy ground or else, as well as Sadist Hussein's hubristic disrespect for the petrodollar, daring to trade his oil for euros, a line in the desert crossed only by impulsive tyrants with a death wish. Still, just because a superpower, no longer leashed to a gold standard, can print its currency at will to pay for aggressive foreign policies, its leaders unwilling to tax constituents heretofore coddled by the concept of a seductive free lunch, such a modus operandi is not necessarily wise or even sustainable. Indeed, foreign bankers holding mucho greenbacks and U.S. debt notes may not be at all pleased, witnessing such profligacy by the planet's premier debtor albeit superpower nation. Furthermore, euros in recent years have been kicking the butts of Uncle Sam's minted dead presidents, and foreign bankers with no collective conscience or loyalty to anything other than profit, may very well decide to jilt America's most essential psychologically valued export, its beauty ever fading, dumping it precipitously on the market for perhaps a Continental bride, bringing nothing but tsuris to Wall Street and Main Street, stalwart pillars of a consequentially stunned goliath with shaky knees. At this point, even the powerful petrodollar would begin ceding its throne worldwide to perhaps a petroeuro, while the sun rapidly sets on modern day Rome.

Not so fast. Lets not prematurely declare R.I.P. to an empire, perhaps speeding towards a cliff overlooking 'catastrophe canyon', yet still able to apply the brakes with a host of solutions. Furthermore, there are more Neville Chamberlain than Winston Churchill kindred spirits in today's Europe, military budgets overall have shrunk while Islamic militants continue to metastasize through the bowels of that continent in denial, the euro could certainly take a licking if and when the ticking jihad time bomb explodes, and any imagined coronation of a century twenty-one style Continental Caesar, awash in euros, could just as easily become a coroner's inquest of a corpse drained of ancestral blood, tossed like a Caesar salad, garnished with jihadist cretins.

The State of Israel, of course, would be affected by any seismic shifts in a planetary balance of power, thus should reinforce its own foundation, making it as earthquake proof as possible. Solidifying the strength of its shekel by attracting more foreign investors like Warren Buffet and Donald Trump, further advancing a state of the art technology sector, enhancing the quality of first world educational institutions, maximizing employment opportunities, insuring first rate health care for all citizens, maintaining infrastructure, and no doubt revitalizing a military/intelligence establishment that must be world class, is ever necessary, and all this must be accomplished without relying on the psychological value of its national currency, as alas its most formidable ally has so carelessly done. No one knows what the future holds, but wise nations prepare for all eventualities.

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. 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 luniglicht@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tezza (HaDaR), March 18, 2007.

This is called "Judge Terms Crackdown On Anti-Withdrawal Protest 'War'" and it appeared today in

TEL AVIV -- In a defense of police brutality, a judge has termed the government crackdown against the civil disobedience campaign to block the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and West Bank a "war."

Judge Hanan Efrati appeared to justify the behavior of police charged with assaulting an anti-withdrawal protester during a demonstration in 2005. Efrati suggested that police were defending an Israeli government besieged by massive protests against its decision to expel 16,000 Jews from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank.

"These were not ordinary times or ordinary demonstrations," Efrati, a judge in the Tel Aviv Magistrate Court, said. "This was like in a war."

On March 14, Efrati presided over a trial in which two police officers were charged with brutality. The officers allegedly beat and injured a handcuffed young demonstrator who was not resisting arrest during a June 29, 2005 protest in the Tel Aviv suburb of Ramat Gan.

At the trial, a video of the protest showed police officers Eran Naim, 36, and Eliran Avraham, 33, pulling the protester to the ground. The officer handcuffed the demonstrator, Akiva Vitkin, 20, and then beat him around the face.

In the video, Naim inserts his fingers in Vitkins nostrils and then yanks his head back. At the same time, an unidentified officer pokes Vitkin in the eyes.

The prosecution asserted that Avraham later again beat Vitkin in the police station. Vitkin was said to have sustained facial injuries.

"The [prosecution] witness testified that he [Vitkin] did not resist arrest," prosecutor Moshe Saada said. "There was the use of extreme force even when there was no life-threatening danger."

The trial was one of the few cases in which authorities agreed to prosecute police officers alleged to have injured non-violent anti-withdrawal protests. Right-wing parliamentarians asserted that police were ordered to assault peaceful demonstrators to deter anti-government protests against plans to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

During the police brutality trial, Efrati expressed support for the defendants. Efrati demanded that the prosecution respond to the argument that the demonstration in which Vitkin was attacked was meant to launch massive anti-government protests.

"They called this a trial run," Efrati told prosecutor Saada. "Argue in this direction."

The attorney for the police officers said his clients were permitted to use force against Vitkin regardless of whether he resisted arrest. He said the right-wing protest was seen as threatening the country.

"This was an organized disturbance meant to threaten the public order in the state," Lior Epstein said.

Efrati expressed agreement. The judge suggested that demonstrators must accept the risk of police violence.

"There aren't any pet police and there aren't any pet demonstrators," Efrati said.

Contact the poster at HaDar-Israel@verizon.net)

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, March 18, 2007.

You decide.

Recently, as one of my favorite baseball players of all time, Yogi Berra, would say, it was like déjè vu all over again.

Not long ago, yet another example of a scholar--this time, Michael Rubin, a rarity these days who should know better--took Kurds to task in the 3/19/07 Weekly Standard for pressing for independence (or as much secured autonomy as possible), distancing themselves from Arabs who have repeatedly slaughtered them to the tune of hundreds of thousands over this past century. Indeed, he labeled such endeavors "illusions."

Here's a chunk of the article to check out...

...(Senator) Biden is correct that federalism cannot be avoided. However, he is incorrect to assume that federalism should be based on ethnic and sectarian division rather than on Iraq's existing geographical provinces. Ethnic division will not bring security. Rather than embrace peace with his neighbors, Barzani now mimics the strategy of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat--seeking diplomatic legitimacy while refusing to renounce violence.

Rubin's "Enabling Kurdish Illusions" mostly focused on the PKK's fight with the Turks and--as can be seen in his analogy of mainstream Kurdish leaders with Arafat (how many Arab school buses, restaurants, pizza parlors, etc. and so forth have Talabani or Barzani ordered blown up?) and other comments--holds that Kurds are asking for too much to want something beyond their perpetual, insecure existence among their various butchers and tormentors.

I subsequently asked Rubin in our correspondence if he holds that Arabs should not get their proposed 22nd state (and 2nd, not 1st, one in "Palestine") because of the terror of both Hamas and Abbas's alleged "moderate" Fatah.

I received no reply from him on this or my other points. Rubin labeled them all a rant and then claimed that my suggestion that too often sins of both commission and omission in what is and what is not taught in the classroom are tied to financial support--in one way or another--received by those institutions was an insult.

Forget about his real insult to the plight of 30 million repeatedly massacred, subjugated, used, and abused stateless people that his Weekly Standard article represented. That was of no concern.

Keep in mind that much of Rubin's analysis was on target, and I do agree that as part of a better Kurdish future, the PKK will have to be dealt with. I've written this myself.

I, too, see the Turks as friends and valued allies. Here's a slice from one of my own articles on this topic, "Are You Ready? Here's The Plan":

"...The one place where American military bases will probably be welcome in this strategic part of the world (where they increasingly are not) is in Iraqi Kurdistan...like the one America has at Incirlik in Turkey.

This would accomplish a number of things.

First, under the right circumstances, it could help calm the nerves of the Turks. The latter have their own ideas about what to do upon the breakup of Iraq...or even sooner.

Ankara has long pouted over the loss of Mosul and northern Iraq's Kurdish oil wealth after the Brits manipulated the League of Nations to tie it to its Mesopotamian Mandate gift to its Arab allies in 1925...at the expense of earlier-promised Kurdish independence.

American bases could help insure that the border remains stable...in both directions.

Hopefully, the leftist, militant Kurdish PKK could be convinced, with an independent Kurdish state or secure and highly autonomous Kurdish region as the prize, to avoid problems with the Turks. American forces and Kurdish Peshmerga would have to show Ankara, however, what the alleged "moderate" Abbas refuses to do for Israel...that Kurds are willing to use force even against their own people for the sake of peace with their neighbors. This goes for dealing with jihadist Islamist Kurds as well, notably those associated with Ansar al-Islam.

While one fifth of Turkey's population of about seventy million is Kurdish and this population is adjacent to Iraqi Kurdistan, it is obviously in the Kurds' overall best interests to assure their powerful Turkish neighbors (whose armed forces are already amassed on the border, set to pounce) that a peaceful Kurdish state will not be a major headache for them.

Keep in mind that an Israel that can fit almost forty times into Turkey has a similar problem yet is expected to see yet another hostile Arab state (Arabs 22, Kurds 0) created in its very backyard. One fifth of Israel's six to seven million people are Arabs. Why is this not "destabilizing," but mere talk of the birth of an independent Kurdistan constantly gets branded this way Stating the obvious, Kurds would help insure peace with their neighbors since it would be their own best guarantee for their sustained independence or secured autonomy."

Again, the above was among what Rubin simply called a rant when I answered his note to me complaining of my "insult."

When "Enabling Kurdish Illusions" was first brought to my attention, it brought back bad memories.

These included my never receiving a doctoral dissertation advisor for daring to bring up such inconvenient truths in a program led by a tenured chief honcho at Ohio State whose only mention of Kurds--while constantly lionizing the cause of Arab state # 22--was when he mocked their plight while speaking of his travels through Turkey.

But this time, decades later, it was even worse, for I was certain that the fairly recent renewed slaughter and gassings of Kurds would finally open eyes a bit more to the hypocrisy which prevails both on the world arena at large and among academics in particular.

Recall, again, that thirty million Kurds remain stateless today, their promised dream of independence in the new age of nationalism aborted on behalf of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism.

Caught between a constricted yet invigorated Turkish nationalism led by Ataturk after the breakup of the Ottoman Turkish Empire post-World War I and its eastern Iranian counterpart under Reza Shah Pahlavi, Mesopotamian Kurdistan became the focus of the Kurds' main struggle. Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) drew his line in the sand beyond which there would be no further retreat. Turkey's large eastern Kurdish population became "Mountain Turks" from then on...language and culture outlawed, etc. and so forth.

Arabs would do likewise.

Ismet Cherif Vanly's The Syrian Mein Kampf Against The Kurds (Amsterdam 1968) and the Kurdish experience among Arabs in Iraq are stories that are well known to all who want to know.

To this day, Kurdish kids in Syria are forced to sing songs in school praising their "Arab" identity.

Unfortunately, those who you'd expect would be among the most tuned in have been, instead, among the worse offenders who have played deaf, dumb, and blind to the plight of Kurds while never allowing "Palestine" to move off of the front burner in the halls of academia.

Before going any further, check out this haunting analogy and excerpt from a presentation by a leader of another victimized people in 1937:

Whenever I hear a Zionist...accused of asking too much...I really cannot understand it...Yes we do want a State; every nation on earth...they all have States of their own...the normal condition of a people. Yet, when we, the most abnormal of peoples, and therefore the most unfortunate, ask for only the same...then it is called too much...We have got to save millions, many millions. I do not know whether it is a question of one third...half...or a quarter (indeed, one third of world Jewry would be eliminated within just a few years of his remarks)...

It is not a hardship on any race, any nation possessing so many National States now and so many more National States in the future. One fraction, one branch...and not a big one, will have to live in someone else's State: Well, that is the case with all the mightiest nations of the world...That is only normal and there is no "hardship" attached to that. So when we hear the Arab claim confronted with the Jewish claim, I fully understand that any minority would prefer to be a majority.

It is quite understandable that the Arabs...would also prefer Palestine to be the Arab State No. 4, No. 5. or No. 6...but when the Arab claim is confronted with our Jewish demand to be saved, it is like the claims of appetite versus...starvation.

The presenter was Ze'ev Vladimir Jabotinsky, the patron saint of Israel's modern Likud Party, testifying before The Palestine Royal Commission in London.

Does this sound just a bit familiar? A rant and no analogy here, Dr. Rubin?

Having seen Arabs, Turks, Iranians, Jews, Armenians, and others in the region live to see their quest for independence eventually fulfilled, it did not take Einstein to figure out how Kurds would react to repeatedly being ignored by the world community and deprived of the same thing...that same world community which today insists that that 22nd state be created for Arabs (on lands conquered and forcibly Arabized from mostly non-Arab peoples) while Kurds remain stateless.

Continued Kurdish frustration, oppression, and subjugation has led to repeated revolts and conflict in Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq. And again, while those same Arabs, Turks, and Iranians saw the emergence of their own modern nation states, tens of millions of Kurds were told that they were to simply accept their perpetual victimization...including by such folks as Rubin.

After receiving a favorable decision from the League of Nations tying the oil-rich Mosul region to their Mesopotamian Mandate in 1925, the Brits decided that their future depended more on Arab good will than on promises to the Kurds. An Arab Iraq was created with the oil of the Kurdish north tied to it for strategic and economic viability. The British imperial fleet had not long before switched from coal to oil...

The area around oil-rich Kirkuk and Mosul was the heartland of Kurdistan for millennia--long before an Arab or Turk ever set foot in the region. In the 1960s and '70s, the competing Talabani and Barzani factions of Kurds joined forces and took on their latest Arab butchers, including Saddam. Yes, he was around for that long.

A country as artificial and unstable as Yugoslavia was thus sired under similar circumstances (upon the collapse of empires and with groups often at each others' throats glued together largely for others' interests), with British military support aiding in the suppression of the Kurds' subsequent responses to this travesty.

Unlike the Brits' other Mandate, Palestine, which would witness several partitions and partition plans to take into account competing nationalisms (like those which would also result in a Muslim Pakistan and a largely Hindu India), Kurds would simply be ignored in the even larger Mandate of Mesopotamia. Keep in mind that Arab nationalism was rewarded some 80% of the original April 25, 1920 Mandate of Palestine with the creation of what would later be renamed Jordan in 1922. Again, the fight today is over the birth of the Arabs' second state in "Palestine," not the first.

Arabs declared the whole area to be purely Arab patrimony, and woe unto those who demanded their own slice of justice in the new nationalist age...be they Jabotinsky's Jews, Kurds, black African Sudanese, etc. and so forth.

So, back to Rubin's piece...

Yes, it was déjà vu yet again...

Back in the '70s when I was doing masters and doctoral work in New York and Ohio and also a consultant for a major organization guest lecturing on dozens of universities across several states, I noticed those obvious acts of omission and commission mentioned earlier in the halls of academia itself. While it later became obvious to me what was going on, back then I was still too nave and starry eyed about the positive aspects of the ivory tower to believe...

But, to reiterate, I noticed that while certain topics and issues never left center stage, others rarely--if ever--were even mentioned. At least Rubin now mentions them...

So, while Arab genocidal behavior towards African blacks--Muslims as well as non-Muslims, and not only in the Sudan--has been going on for decades, too many act now as if Darfur and such are new developments.

Ditto for the revolts of the Kurds for freedom against their Arab and other oppressors, the plight of native Middle Eastern Jews (kilab yahud--Jew dogs--in Arabic), Copts, Assyrians, Berbers, and so forth.

Most often, such subjects were/are simply ignored by the same professors who constantly scrutinize Israel under a high power lens and espouse the cause of the Arabs' 22nd state.

That same tenured chief honcho I referred to earlier who liked to call Jabotinsky a fascist, all but canonized Hitler's good buddy, the Mufti of Jerusalem. And this was the same academic who taught a doctoral seminar on the Palestine Mandate and never mentioned the Cairo Conference of 1921 where Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, engineered the future separation of Transjordan--over 75 % of the territory--from Palestine on behalf of the Brits' Arab allies in World War I. Included, such information would put to the lie the Arab claim that the Jews wound up with the whole shebang. A mere accident from an academic expert in this field? Guess again...

Worse yet, academic freedom only goes one way in such classes. Students risk their future careers (as I know all too well) by asking for such balance.

Another professor, who I suspect was more reasonable, allowed me, as a doctoral Teaching Assistant, to do a one day's lesson on the Kurds. The Arabs in class were disturbed by this deviation from having the Jews frequently under the lens, so I soon "heard" about it. And note that the T.A. was chosen to do this lesson...No professor dared touch such a topic with a ten foot pole.

This was all too typical in Middle Eastern Studies then, and I suspect it remains so today as well.

And seeing articles such as Rubin's "Enabling Kurdish Illusions" is not promising in this regard either.

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

This essay appeared in

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, March 17, 2007.

This was written by Rabbi Nissan Dovid Dubov, who is director of Chabad Lubavitch in Wimbledon, UK. It appeared in

The term "End of Days" is taken from Numbers 24:4. This has always been taken as a reference to the messianic era and therefore we shall explore albeit briefly the Jewish belief in the coming of Mashiach.

What does the word Mashiach mean?

Mashiach is the Hebrew word for Messiah. The word Messiah in English means a saviour or a "hoped-for deliverer". The word Mashiach in Hebrew actually means "anointed". In Biblical Hebrew the title Mashiach was bestowed on somebody who had attained a position of nobility and greatness. For example, the High Priest is referred to as the Kohen Hamashiach.

In Talmudic literature the title Mashiach, or Melech Hamashiach, (the King Messiah) is reserved for the Jewish leader who will redeem Israel in the End of Days.

What is the belief in Mashiach?

One of the principles of Jewish faith enumerated by Maimonides is that one day there will arise a dynamic Jewish leader, a direct descendant of the Davidic dynasty, who will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and gather Jews from all over the world and bring them back to the Land of Israel.

All the nations of the world will recognise Mashiach to be a world leader and will accept his dominion. In the messianic era there will be world peace, no more wars nor famine and, in general, a high standard of living.

All mankind will worship one G-d and live a more spiritual and moral way of life. The Jewish nation will be preoccupied with learning Torah and fathoming its secrets.

The coming of Mashiach will complete G-d's purpose in creation: for man to make an abode for G-d in the lower worlds; to reveal the inherent spirituality in the material world.

Is this not a utopian dream?

No! Judaism fervently believes that, with the correct leadership, humankind can and will change. The leadership quality of Mashiach means that through his dynamic personality and example, coupled with manifest humility, he will inspire all people to strive for good. He will transform a seemingly utopian dream into a reality. He will be recognised as a man of G-d with greater leadership qualities than even Moshe.

In today's society many people are repulsed by the breakdown of ethical and moral standards. Life is cheap, crime is rampant, drug and alcohol abuse are on the increase, children have lost respect for their elders. At the same time technology has advanced in quantum leaps. There is no doubt that today, if channelled correctly, man has all the resources necessary to create a good standard of living for all mankind. He lacks only the social and political will. Mashiach will inspire all men to fulfil that aim.

Why the belief in a human Messiah?

Some people believe that the world will "evolve" by itself into a messianic era without a human figurehead. Judaism rejects this belief. Human history has been dominated by empire builders greedy for power.

Others believe in Armageddon -- that the world will self-destruct, either by nuclear war or by terrorism. Again Judaism rejects this view.

Our prophets speak of the advent of a human leader, the magnitude of whom the world has not yet experienced. His unique example and leadership will inspire mankind to change direction.

Where is Mashiach mentioned in the Scriptures?

The Scriptures are replete with messianic quotes. In Deuteronomy 30:1 Moshe prophesies that, after the Jews have been scattered to the four corners of the earth, there will come a time when they will repent and return to Israel where they will fulfil all the commandments of the Torah. The gentile prophet Bilam prophesies that this return will be lead by Mashiach (see Numbers 24:17-20). Jacob refers to Mashiach by the name Shilo (Genesis 49:10).

The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Joel and Hosea all refer to the messianic era. For full references the reader is referred to the book Mashiach by Rabbi Dr.I.Schochet. It is interesting to note that on the wall of the United Nations building in New York is inscribed the quote from Isaiah (Ch.11:6), "And the wolf shall lie with the lamb". Furthermore, it is clear from the prophets, when studied in their original Hebrew, that Mashiach is a Jewish concept and will entail return to Torah law, firmly ruling out any "other" messianic belief.

What sort of leader will Mashiach be?

Mashiach will be a man who possesses extraordinary qualities. He will be proficient in both the written and oral Torah traditions. He will incessantly campaign for Torah observance among Jews and observance of the Seven Universal Noahide Laws by non-Jews. He will be scrupulously observant and encourage the highest standards from others. He will defend religious principles and repair breaches in their observance. Above all, Mashiach will be heralded as a true Jewish King, a person who leads the way in the service of G-d, totally humble yet enormously inspiring.

When will Mashiach come?

Jews anticipate the arrival of Mashiach everyday. Our prayers are full of requests to G-d to usher in the messianic era. Even at the gates of the gas chambers many Jews sang, "Ani Maamin" -- I believe in the coming of Mashiach!

However, the Talmud states that there is a predestined time when Mashiach will come. If we are meritorious he may come even before that predestined time. This "end of time" remains a mystery, yet the Talmud states that it will be before the Hebrew year 6000. (The Hebrew year at the date of this publication is 5763.)

This does not rule out the possibility of Mashiach coming today and now if we merit it. It should be noted that many Torah authorities are of the opinion that we are in the "epoch of the Mashiach" and the Lubavitcher Rebbe stated on numerous occasions that the messianic redemption is imminent.

Could Mashiach come at any time in any generation?

Yes. In every generation there is a person who potentially could be the Mashiach. When G-d decides the time has arrived, He will bestow upon that individual the necessary powers for him to precipitate that redemption.

Any potential Mashiach must be a direct descendant of King David as well as erudite in Torah learning. It should be noted that many people living today can trace their lineage back to King David. The Chief Rabbi of Prague in the 16th Century, Rabbi Yehuda Loew (the Maharal), had a family tree that traced him back to the Davidic dynasty. Consequently, any direct descendant of the Maharal is of Davidic descent.

Maimonides, a great Jewish philosopher and codifier of the 12th Century, rules that if we recognise a human being who possesses the superlative qualities ascribed to Mashiach we may presume that he is the potential Mashiach. If this individual actually succeeds in rebuilding the Temple and gathering in the exiles then he is the Mashiach.

What exactly will happen when Mashiach comes?

Maimonides states in his Mishnah Torah -- a compendium of the entire halachic tradition -- that Mashiach will first rebuild the Temple and then gather in the exiles. Jerusalem and the Temple will be the focus of Divine worship and "From Zion shall go forth Torah, and the word of the L-rd from Jerusalem."

The Sanhedrin -- a supreme Jewish law court of 71 sages -- will be established and will decide on all matters of law. At this time all Jews will return to full Torah observance and practice. It should be noted that in this present age of great assimilation and emancipation an unprecedented return of Jews to true Torah values has taken place. This "Baal Teshuvah" phenomenon is on the increase and paves the way for a full return in the messianic era.

Will miracles happen?

The Talmud discusses this question and again arrives at the conclusion that, if we are meritorious, the messianic redemption will be accompanied by miracles. However, the realisation of the messianic dream, even if it takes place naturally, will be the greatest miracle.

According to some traditions G-d Himself will rebuild the third Temple. According to others it will be rebuilt by Mashiach, while others suggest a combination of the two opinions. Some suggest that there will be two distinct periods in the messianic era: the first, a non-miraculous period, leading on to a second miraculous period.

Maimonides writes, "Neither the order of the occurrence of these events nor their precise detail is among the fundamental principles of the faith ... one should wait and believe in the general conception of the matter."

What will become of the world as we know it?

Initially, there will be no change in the world order other than its readiness to accept messianic rule. All the nations of the world will strive to create a new world order in which there will be no more wars or conflicts. Jealousy, hatred, greed and political strife (of the negative kind) will disappear and all human beings will strive only for good, kindness and peace.

In the messianic era there will be great advances in technology allowing a high standard of living. Food will be plentiful and cheap.

However the focus of human aspiration will be the pursuit of the "knowledge of G-d." People will become less materialistic and more spiritual.

What are the birthpangs of Mashiach's arrival?

The Talmud describes the period immediately prior to the advent of Mashiach as one of great travail and turmoil. There will be a world recession and governments will be controlled by despots. It is in this troubled setting that Mashiach will arrive.

There is a tradition that a great war will take place, called the war of Gog and Magog, and there is much speculation as to the precise timing of this war in relation to Mashiach's arrival.

There is a tradition that Elijah the prophet will come to the world and announce the imminent arrival of Mashiach. However, according to other opinions, Mashiach may arrive unannounced. Elijah would then arrive to assist in the peace process. Some suggest that if the Mashiach arrives in his predestined time then Elijah will announce his arrival, but if Mashiach comes suddenly then Elijah will appear after Mashiach has come.

As mentioned before, it is unclear as to exactly how these events will unfold. However, this uncertainty does not affect the general matter of Mashiach's arrival.

When will the resurrection of the dead take place?

One of the principles of Jewish faith is belief in the resurrection of the dead. According to the Zohar -- an early Kabbalistic text -- the resurrection will take place forty years after the arrival of Mashiach. However, certain righteous individuals will arise with the coming of Mashiach. All the dead will be resurrected in the Land of Israel.

There is a small bone in the body called the Luz bone (some identify this bone as the coccyx) from which the body will be rebuilt at the time of resurrection. Our daily prayers are replete with requests for the resurrection and there are many customs connected with it. (See the book To Live and Live Again -- SIE Publications)

What can be done to bring Mashiach?

In general, mankind must strive to perform more acts of goodness and kindness. The Jew is mandated to learn and be aware of the messianic redemption, and strengthen his faith in Mashiach's ultimate and imminent arrival.

Charity is a catalyst for redemption and every day in our prayers we sincerely plead many times for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the in-gathering of the exiles and the return to Torah observance under the leadership of Mashiach. The Lubavitcher Rebbe mounted a worldwide Mashiach campaign to heighten the awareness of Mashiach's imminent arrival. The Rebbe constantly urged every Jew to prepare himself, his family and his community for the arrival of Mashiach. This can best be achieved by "living with Mashiach"; that is, by learning about Mashiach and yearning for his coming.

Summary In conclusion, the Jew always was and remains the eternal optimist. Even in his darkest hour he hopes and prays for a brighter future -- a world of peace and spirituality.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, March 17, 2007.

T he world's radical regimes--especially Iran, Syria, North Korea, and their associated client groups--have come up with a brilliant strategy that breaks every rule in the diplomatic book and yet works brilliantly. The West's inability to cope with this approach--indeed, failure even to comprehend it--has been one of the biggest problems in Middle Eastern and world politics for the last few decades.

The basic rules of diplomacy go something like this:

-- States that act aggressively or systematically subvert neighbors (using tools like terrorism) know they will be punished and so don't do it;

-- Governments seek to resolve conflicts, especially if they are losing them;

-- Powerful states can deter less strong adversaries from violating their interests by the threat of force or sanctions;

-- Weaker states want to avoid violent confrontations with stronger ones, fearing the cost of defeat;

-- Governments must try to address the suffering of their citizens, and if they don't deliver the goods, they get overthrown

All the above points make sense. Western politicians, diplomats, academics, and journalists all expect that other countries will follow these rules. When they don't do so, often they reinterpret the other governments' behavior--out of ignorance or disbelief--to conform to them.

You might call this system, "moderation insurance" because it tends to discourage regimes from acting in an adventurous manner and knocks out of existence those who disregard these rules. In fact, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, while so highly controversial, could be called a normal application of the rules of international affairs. Another example of the system is the balance of power, which has so often prevented war--the U.S.-Soviet, Greek-Turkish, and India-Pakistan balances usually worked to keep the peace.

Starting in the 1950s, however, radical Arab nationalist, and later Islamist regimes, simply threw away this rule book. Their less extremist neighbors--like Saudi Arabia and Jordan--believed they were making a big mistake by doing so. Watch out, they warned, the West is going to crush you! Do you think it will let you get away with sponsoring terrorism, starting wars, overthrowing the shah of Iran, and disregarding their interests in every way?

But surprise, surprise, the radicals have generally gotten away with their strategy and often they have prospered from it. This inspired revolutionary opposition movements to use similar tactics and even relatively moderate countries to step up their anti-Western propaganda and ignore Western demands or interests.

A key element in this strategy is that it plays to the strengths of the perpetrators and the perceived weaknesses of the West. On their side, the radicals have several advantages: they like conflict; are patient; not bound by morality (that is, they don't mind murdering people in cold blood); and are willing to suffer (or, rather, let their people suffer since the dictators always eat well). Since they are dictators, they don't care about public opinion and even mobilize it for themselves through demagoguery. (As dictators, they also control the schools and media.)

In contrast, the West likes peace, is impatient for solutions, and doesn't like casualties. As democracies, their people are divided and thus vulnerable to the extremists' propaganda.

So what are the main elements of the radicals' regulations?

1. Ignore the balance of forces. Who cares if the other side is stronger? What are they going to do, attack us?

2. And if they attack us, let our people suffer to make them feel guilty. Use demagoguery at home to promote the appeal of martyrdom and launch appeals for sympathy abroad.

3. Never end a conflict even if you are losing; never make major concessions because keeping the issue open may mean you will win, and get everything, in the future. Show you are willing to destroy everything and go on fighting forever in order to discourage the other side.

4. Fool the West with propaganda; promise to be good if they only give you what you want. Get concessions and then break your promises about giving anything in exchange. They won't dare call you on it or will forget it.

5. Throw in some offers of compromise periodically, even if you don't stick to them. Western leaders will rush to make a deal in order to avoid confrontation, make progress, or get glory for themselves.

Thus, in the 1950s and 1960s, Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser said that, if the West doesn't like what we do, let them drink the Nile. In the 1970s and 1980s, Iranian dictator Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini said, the West cannot do a damn thing. Yasir Arafat committed terrorism for 30 years and made the West fund him and beg for his cooperation. Saddam Hussein in the 1990s said, let them continue sanctions, rather than fulfill his commitments. Today, there is Iran's nuclear campaign and Syria's terrorism against its neighbors.

There are some specific countries--especially India, Israel, South Korea and Turkey--whose survival requires them to make an equally tough response with popular support at home. In contrast, crippled by European weakness and its own intellectual fifth column, its priority on high living standards and low levels of bloodshed, the West has a hard time dealing with this problem.

And yet, nevertheless, the West and democratic world will win, for the traditional rules ultimately will apply. For example, the extremists force the West to oppose them by their very aggressiveness; economic and strategic superiority does count. The problem is that this new radical strategic superweapon makes it harder and longer to achieve this result.

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, August 2007). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Devolin, March 17, 2007.

Steven Stalinsky, the Executive Director of the Middle East Media Research Institute, wrote in the National Review (May 2004) that, "As the war on terror continues, the voices from the Arab and Muslim world celebrating death over life have been heard more often than those criticizing this philosophy." Judging either by the silence or the non-committal voices of the so-called "moderates" of Islam, we the inexperts-on-Islam, non-Muslims of this world can only surmise that Islam has fixed itself upon the course set out for it by the violent and bloody-minded of this religion. A course pondered and plotted not only by Mohammed himself, but also by many extremists since Islam's conception.

The famous British historian Charles Allen mentions in his book God's Terrorists that present day Wahabbism began long before the Arab Al Wahhab (born in 1702), from whom the Wahabbists get their name, but earlier, in the late 13th century (1263), in what is now Syria, in the heart and mind of the Sunni jurist Sheikh Ibn Taymiyya. Bernard Lewis (whom I consider to be too much an apologist for Islam and too little an objective historian) points out that sectarian violence within this religion's bloody sphere began immediately the Prophet Mohammed died and his so-called heir apparent could not be deemed as being apparent enough. Regardless, wherever Islam takes root, violence is found there, and in effusive measure.

We hear from Islam's apologists, over and over (many of whom will not answer those particular questions which profile the very off-putting and denigrating passages in the Quran about the Jews), that terrorism and bloodshed and everyday mistreatment of non-Muslims are not an integral part of Islam but rather a tangential phenomenon of their religion. We hear that those incriminating manifestations -- for example, the public beheadings of both Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg -- are not incriminating at all but rather a culture of the region wherein these manifestations take place and therefore outside of Islam. If this is the case, why is Islam always a contributing factor in these violent manifestations and why are Muslims always involved in these violent manifestations? Moreover, why is Islam and its millions of adherents (clerics included) more concerned with killing their critics than with listening to them. No-one has put it more succinctly than the Tunisian intellectual Al-Afif Al-Akhdar when he wrote, "Why do expressions of tolerance, moderation, rationalism, compromise, and negotiation horrify us [Muslims], but when we hear fervent cries for vengeance, we all dance the war dance?...Why do other people love life, while we love death and violence, slaughter and suicide, and even call it heroism and martyrdom?"

If Islam's apologists are to be believed, we are to blame entire peoples for bad customs and not the religion of Islam. For instance, we are to blame Palestinians for suicide bombings and not those Islamic clerics who teach their congregants that to murder Jewish Israeli children warrants them a place in Paradise; we are to believe that Pakistanis are congenitally and inherently evil for beheading Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg and not Wahabbism's Islamic clerics who, as related by William Gifford Palgrave, teach that all Muslims should "consider everyone save themselves an infidel or a heretic," and "regard the slaughter of an infidel or a heretic as a duty, at least a merit"; we are to believe that all Chechens are born bad and not the Muslim zealots who, led by an Amir and inspired by passages from the Quran, murdered 186 Russian school children (but not before raping some of the young girls) in the small town of Beslan.

I can go on, but I think the reader can see the point I'm making: Islam, and not their provincial culture, has created all this interconnecting obsession with death and destruction and hatred among these many peoples who have been inculcated with its maleficent ideology. Islam's apologists (including their "experts") are simply attempting to obfuscate this obvious peculiarity attendant wherever Islam becomes the dominant religion. Sophists like Harroon Siddiqui of the Toronto Star are sweating at the brow, especially since the advent of the internet, in their attempts to conceal the atrocious truth about Islam, which is that Islam emanates violence and bloodshed. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen appellated Islamic violence as "political Islam," which is both ridiculous and irresponsible. Anyone who delves even slightly into the history of Islam will immediately see that this insalubrious religion is culpable for all Islamic terrorism and hatred of the West. No matter how great the good our Western governments can do for the Muslim Middle East, whether militarily, financially, or otherwise, the Muslim Middle East will repay us contumeliously, vis-a-vis Islam's inexorable penchant for terrorism and their religiously taught hatred of everything Judeo-Christian.

Islam is the exclusive and primary source of Wahabbist terrorism -- not Christianity and not Judaism; Islam is the exclusive and primary source of the Wahabbist terrorist--not Christianity and not Judaism. Only Islam is the source of violence between Muslim factions within the Middle East -- between Sunni and Shia, between Fatah and Hamas -- not Western governments, and especially not the United States, a country that has given billions to these Muslim groups only to see it disappear into a bureaucratic oblivion immediately it reaches the so-called "leaders" of these Islamic factions. Likewise, if there exists a provincial culture outside of the Western hemisphere wherein murder and terrorism are become most fashionable, even acceptable, then you can be assured that Islam, the same Islam practiced the world over, contributed markedly to the formation of that culture.

"When the light is crooked, the shadow is crooked." --Yiddish proverb

"Muslim leaders and governments are unhappy to call it Islamic terrorism. They argue Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamic faith is not the cause of terrorism." -- K.N. Pandita

Contact Michael Devolin at devolin@reach.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, March 17, 2007.

This was written by Avi Issacharoff, and it appeared today in Haaretz

Aren't you thrilled Olmert presented Hamas with all those kill-a-Jew weapons a few weeks ago -- with Abbas as delivery boy. They play it for us westerners like a cop show - good cop, bad cop: Good terrorists Fatah, bad terrorists Hamas. Actually, it's more Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum: Fatah, Hamas and all the splinter groups are all the same and have the same desire to kill off Israel. They only disagree on who keeps the welfare money from EU. The current sham unity was mecca-factured and paid for by the Saudis, who want the Palestinians to pretend they are ready for peace with Israel -- it's part of the Saudi plan to pressure Israel into committing peace-plan-suicide. The Saudis hope that with the weakness of the lobotomized Israeli government and with pressure from the bucktoothed queen of the state dept, their "peace" plan will work before PA "unity" splinters and/or Hamas kills off all the opposition.

The celebrations in Ramallah and Gaza on Saturday of the Palestinian Authority unity government could all too quickly turn into a burial ceremony for Fatah.

The movement over the past year presented itself as a clear political alternative to Hamas. Now it has become Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh's closest ally. Senior Fatah officials opposed to the move worry the organization will thus be identified with failures in the economy, internal security and in creating a political horizon.

The limited protests from senior Fatah figures against Hamas policy will peter out and with them the chances to constitute a real political and cultural competition to the Islamists.

Both Haniyeh and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas were all smiles on Saturday, but Haniyeh and his Hamas associates particularly had reason to be pleased. Following tough negotiations, Hamas has a majority in the cabinet after Fatah agreed to consider Foreign Minister Ziyad Abu Amar as one of the independent ministers representing it.

The idea of holding elections was rejected, and a crack has appeared in the diplomatic siege of Hamas, while the organization has not changed its ideology: no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it (Abbas will do the dirty work) and "the resistance" in other words, violence will go on.

However, the option of Palestinian unity and damage to Fatah was the lesser of two evils. The other possibility for Abbas was civil war. The problem is that until the next elections for president (in less than two years) the Palestinian public will forget that Abbas overcame lesser political considerations and remember primarily that Fatah is not functioning. The movement's reforms of bringing in younger leaders was not enough. Most of the 72,0000 registered members of Fatah know today there is no alternative to Hamas, say young Tanzim leaders in the West Bank.

The sixth party convention has become a stale joke; there seems little chance it will ever be held. The party is in economic crisis, and attempts by senior Fatah officials to impact voters through a social safety net pale in comparison to Hamas' social services network. Corruption in PA institutions and the chaos on the streets are identified with Fatah and its security forces. Above all, the feeling is widespread that no one is in charge in Fatah.

Meanwhile, Hamas is continuing its quiet revolution. Recently 11 Hamas members were appointed to senior posts in the PA Education Ministry, and the number of hours of religious studies has been increased by about 20 percent.

Hamas reaches the hearts of the people, and one of the best ways to do this has always been through the mosques. In 2000, there were 100 of them in Ramallah; today there are 190. Without laws to limit it, Hamas has managed to lead a cultural change in Palestinian society. Most women in the territories wear head coverings, including some who do so to avoid public criticism. Fewer restaurants sell alcohol and halls for weddings and other festivities are being asked not to host belly-dancers.

Hamas leaders are sounding sure of themselves these days, while working unceasingly to gain new members, and Fatah carries on with its internal struggles.

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, March 17, 2007.

A March 14, 2007 editorial in The Washington Times
(www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070313-090315-9588r) explains how the battle against Islamic extremists is being waged in the towns of Europe, not the battlegrounds of the Middle East. This was written by Paul Belien, editor of the Brussels Journal and an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute.

The decisive battle against Islamic extremists will not be fought in Iraq, but in Europe. It is not in Baghdad but in cities like Antwerp, Belgium, where the future of the West will be decided.

I recently met Marij Uijt den Bogaard, a 49-year-old woman who deserves America's support at least as much as Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Ms. Uijt den Bogaard was an Antwerp civil servant in the 1990s, who spent many years working in the immigrant neighborhoods of Antwerp. There she noticed how radical Islamists began to take over. "They work according to a well-defined plan," she says.

One of the things Ms. Uijt den Bogaard used to do for the immigrants was to assist them with their administrative paperwork. Quite a few of them came to trust her.

About three years ago, young men dressed in black moved into the neighborhoods. They had been trained in Saudi Arabia and Jordan and adhere to Salafism, a radical version of Islam. They set up youth organizations, which gradually took over the local mosques. "The Salafists know how to debate and they know the Qur'an by heart, while the elderly running the mosques do not," she said They also have money. "One of them told me that he gets Saudi funds." Because they are eloquent, the radicals soon became the official spokesmen of the Muslim community, also in dealing with the city authorities. Ms. Uijt den Bogaard witnessed how the latter gave in to Salafist demands, such as the demand for separate swimming hours for Muslim women in the municipal pools.

Worried immigrants told Ms. Uijt den Bogaard what was happening. On the basis of their accounts and her own experiences she wrote (confidential) reports for the city authorities about the growing radicalization. This brought her into conflict, both with the Islamists and her bosses in the city.

The city warned her that her reports were unacceptable, that they read like "Vlaams Belang tracts" (the Vlaams Belang is Antwerp's anti-immigrant party) and that she had to "change her attitude." The Islamists sensed that she disapproved of them. They might also have been informed, because there are Muslims working in the city administration. One day, when she was accompanied by her superior, she was attacked by a Muslim youth. Her superior refused to interfere. When she questioned him afterward he said that all the animosity toward her was her own fault.

In the end she was fired. She is unemployed at the moment and gets turned away whenever she applies for another job as a civil servant. Last week, she learned that city authorities have given the job of integration officer, whose task it is to supervise 25 Antwerp mosques, to one of the radical Salafists. Meanwhile, the latter have threatened her with reprisals if she continues to speak out.

After her dismissal Ms. Uijt den Bogaard went to see Monica Deconinck, a Socialist politician who is the head of the Antwerp social department, to tell her about the plight of the Muslim women. Ms. Deconinck said, "You have taken your job too seriously and tried to do it too well," adding that she cannot help, although she sympathizes. Ms. Uijt den Bogaard also went to see Christian Democrat and Liberal politicians. They also refused to help her because they are governing the city in a coalition with the Socialists. The only opposition party in town is the Vlaams Belang.

According to Ms. Uijt den Bogaard, the reason why the Socialists, who run the city, allow the Islamists to do as they please is because they want to get the Muslim vote, which is controlled increasingly by the Salafists who are in the process of taking over the mosques.

In a letter to city authorities she wrote: "You employ workers to improve social cohesion in the city's neighborhoods. But if you do not want to know what is damaging social cohesion, then you need not bother sending those workers!... Employees who are confronted with this problem [of Muslim radicalization] and investigate are silently removed, losing their income and their reputation. That is censorship in the fashion of political dictatorships. As a former member of your services I am shocked to find myself in this position and to discover after years of service that you have no policy whatever, either political or with regard to your personnel."

Sadly, what is happening in Antwerp is not unique. The Salafists employ the same strategy in other European cities. They boasted to Ms. Uijt den Bogaard about their international network and their successes in neighboring countries. While the Americans fight to secure Iraq, Western Europe is becoming a hotbed of Salafism.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, March 17, 2007.

This was written by Diana West and it appeared yesterday as an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Times

Without attracting much attention, representatives of the Belgian political party Vlaams Belang recently visited Washington, D.C. Frank Vanhecke and Filip Dewinter hoped to meet members of Congress; but Congress was in recess. They hoped to engender some understanding of their program to reverse the Islamization of Belgium; but the media were strip-mining the tinsel life and tawdry times of Anna Nicole Smith.

Maybe they should have known that Tabloid America doesn't care about the likely transformation of Europe into an Islamic continent, let alone the fate of a French- and Dutch-speaking country of 10 million people. And while Literary America does write books about the transformation -- "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer, "The War for the West" by Tony Blankley and "America Alone" by Mark Steyn come to mind. Political America has yet to acknowledge or even notice this colossal, epoch-defining shift now taking place.

Why don't our leaders face it? This may be one of those questions our children will ask some day. But if such natural curiosity isn't expressed until the next generation, the civilizational struggle for Europe will certainly have been lost. Better to question our politicians now. Better to examine the issue today.

Europe, as we may readily observe, is very far along in an accommodation with its still-increasing Muslim immigrant population that is resulting not in the Europeanizing of Islam, but rather the Islamizing of Europe. As Bernard Lewis declared in 2004, Europe will have an Islamic majority by the end of the 21st century at the latest. As Vlaams Belang's Mr. Dewinter recently put it, "We are becoming foreigners in our own land." Such tragic pronouncements turn conversation with Vlaams Belang into a kind of political free verse -- sadly evocative but rooted in a desperate reality that should shake American complacency. That is, "foreigners in our land" is poetry; Mohammed as the most popular boy's name in Brussels for six years running is implacable fact. The idea that "We are living on a dying continent but we are not dead yet," as Mr. Dewinter has explained, is metaphorical. His citation from Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi that "Allah is mobilizing Muslim Turkey to add... 50 million more Muslims" to the European Union augurs world-class revolution.

Is such a revolution desirable? After writing nearly incessantly about Islamization since September 11, I won't surprise anyone by saying no -- not if freedom of conscience, religious equality or women's rights are your bag (not to mention the glorious representational artwork Europe's museums are stuffed with). Besides, the strategic implications for the United States are, in a word, bleak.

In multiculturally totalitarian Belgium, however, you make such judgments at your own risk. Vlaams Belang, a conservative, free-market party that stands for Flemish secession from the French-speaking part of Belgium and opposes continued immigration, now stands trial in a Belgian court for a comment -- a comment! -- Mr. Dewinter made in 2005 to a New York publication, The Jewish Week. When asked why Belgian Jews should vote for a party that espouses "xenophobia," Mr. Dewinter replied: "Xenophobia is not the word I would use. If [it] absolutely must be a 'phobia,' let it be 'Islamophobia.' Yes, we're afraid of Islam. The Islamization of Europe is a frightening thing."

If convicted of the "crime" of "Islamophobia" ("1984," anyone?), the party would lose its state funding. In a country that effectively prohibits private political fund-raising, Vlaams Belang -- the largest party in Belgium -- would ultimately cease to exist. And so, too, would free speech in the center of Europe.

Before I met Vlaams Belang's Frank Vanhecke and Filip Dewinter in Washington, I believed Europe's rush to Islamize itself was a stampede, its transformation all but inevitable. Now, I think these men have at least earned Europe the benefit of the doubt. Studying their various statements and interviews, I found no evidence to support the crude slanders to which they are continually subjected in the media for being a right-wing party opposed to the massive Islamic immigration now transforming traditional European culture. Indeed, their statements on Israel are more supportive than any European party I know of.

As Mr. Vanhecke put it in a recent speech, "They call us 'intolerant' because we oppose intolerance. They call us 'fascists' because we oppose Islamofascism. They call us 'the children of holocaust perpetrators,' because we oppose Islamists who are preparing a new holocaust against the Jews." (emphasis added)

America must start paying attention to Europe. And to Vlaams Belang.

Mordechai Ben-Menachem is at Ben-Gurion University. He can be reached by email at quality@computer.org

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 17, 2007.

To: Publisher -- Rea S. Hederman 212-757-8070
Associate Publisher, Catherine Tice: ctice@nybooks.com
Editor Robert B. Silvers: rsilvers@nybooks.com

From: David Meir-Levi, Menlo Park, CA

Re: Richard Horton's article on Palestinian health care in the 15 March 2007 edition of the New York Review of Books

Date: 2.17.07

Richard Horton is the editor of The Lancet, the UK's best known and most prestigious medical journal. Yet, in Thursday's article he writes palpable nonsense regarding Palestinian health care problems... and you publish it!

He writes that "Procurement of medicines is difficult," but fails to inform readers that the Palestinian Authority government turned down an Israeli offer of $11 million dollars worth of medicine that Israel sought to transfer to the Palestinian Authority, and that the Palestinians asked instead for the cash equivalent. (Ynetnews.com, July 6, 2006) It is the Palestinians who are the obstacle to medicine deliveries -- not the Israelis.

Reproaching Israel for the delays and difficulties caused by its checkpoints, Horton only in passing mentions the Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians that necessitates the security checkpoints. He ignores that the checkpoints have saved countless lives by enabling the Israelis to catch terrorists before they get into Israel to bomb crowded civilian targets.

Similarly, he does not mention that Palestinian terrorists have been caught using ambulances to ferry explosives and weapons and terrorists past checkpoints.

Both Horton and you fail to ask the obvious, and very painful question: Where do you want the casualties?

With the checkpoints and road blocks and ambulance inspections, the casualties are the Palestinians who are delayed and inconvenienced and even some times humiliated.

Without these inherently defensive measures, the casualties would be the scores or hundreds or thousands of Israelis burned alive, blown up, shot, stabbed, kidnapped, tortured, or raped... by the terrorists who would have the freedom to reach their targets.

Horton speaks disparagingly of the medical care Israeli hospitals provide to Palestinians. He seems not to notice that Israel is providing this care to people whose government is at war with Israel. Despite almost 2,000 Israeli deaths, and more than 7,000 injured or maimed for life, and despite the major security problems arising from the violence instigated by the Palestinians, and despite the Palestinians expressing in their speeches and television shows and textbooks and cartoons and sermons their psychotic desire to genocide Israel's Jews, Israel continues to provide medical services for thousands of Palestinians. Jewish doctors have treated Palestinians in Israeli hospitals, trained Palestinian doctors and nurses, and attempted to provide medicine (but their offer was turned down).

And, he just tosses about what he calls facts, without even noticing that in and of themselves they are palpably and demonstrably false. He cites a truly shocking figure: 40% of Gazan children have relatives killed in the 2nd Intifada. But wait a minute...let's do the arithmetic.

There are 1,430,000 Arabs in the Gaza Strip. There were just under 2,000 Gazans killed by Israeli action during the 2nd Intifada. That means that only fourteen one-hundredths of one percent of all Gazans were killed by Israel (0.014%, or 0.0014 expressed as a decimal). It is arithmetically impossible for 40% of Gazan children to be related to 0.0014 of Gazan adults.

Obviously, Horton did not bother to check his own math...nor did you.

The declining health care of the Palestinians today is a product of their own choices, and the choices of their duly and democratically elected government, to pursue an endless, relentless, barbaric and brutal terror war against Israel, despite Israel's repeated attempts to find a negotiated solution to the conflict.

The bottom line that both you and Horton choose to ignore is that it is only the terrorism that creates the need for Israel's security measures. Before Arafat's terror war, there were almost no lock-downs or curfews or road blocks or ambulance searches or security barrier. And, before the terror war, the economy of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was booming, the population was increasing, and health care was far better under Israeli sovereignty than it had ever been, and better than it has been since the Palestinian Authority took over.

Yet he, and you, blame Israel.
David Meir-Levi

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daniel Mandel, March 16, 2007.

Many readers will be aware of the controversy surrounding Dinesh D'Souza's new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, and the criticism it has drawn from D'Souza's conservative colleagues. There has been plentiful discussion at National Review Online, and at FrontpageMag.com, which among other things interviewed D'Souza at length and then conducted a discussion with him over some of his most contentious ideas.

There are few points that have not already been made by those challenging his book's willful thesis -- that the Western radical left has so repelled Muslims with its secularity, impiety and license that it, rather than gruesome Islamist imperial ambition, is a primary cause of Muslim rage and terror against America. Nonetheless, here are two further considerations:

1. There is a "root causes" school that is endlessly fertile in identifying Western acts and faults which enrage Islamists and seeing to it that these operate as causes for their violence. Until now, this narcissistic preoccupation with personal political agendas has been largely a leftist monopoly, rounding up the usual suspects of Western oil greed, neo-liberal economics, neo-conservative muscle-flexing and of course support for Israel. (Some, like Democratic Senator, Patty Murray, as Jay Nordlinger helpfully pointed out in 2004, actually go one step further and appear to believe the Islamists have been nothing less than munificent philanthropists building day care centres for wretched Muslims). D'Souza has now produced the rightist version.

2. In his eagerness to indict the radical left, D'Souza recently wrote
(www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2007-01-22-oplede_x.htm) that

If traditional Muslims realized that there are millions of Americans who go to church, take care of their families and live by traditional values, they would be less likely to view us or our leaders as the Great Satan, and fewer of them will be tempted to join the camp of the Islamic radicals. Improving our moral reputation is not just a way to look better, it may also be the best long-term strategy to make our country safer.

In short, D'Souza thinks of Americans and Muslims as Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State Cyrus Vance once did of the US and the Soviets, namely, that the two sides "have similar dreams and aspirations about the most fundamental issues." D'Souza's solution to Islamist aggression: self-improvement -- this being incidentally a similar delusion, seductively holding out the prospect of control, to the one Israelis have indulged and for which the historian and psychiatrist Kenneth Levin has coined the term "Oslo Syndrome".

Contact Daniel Mandel at daniel.mandel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Caplan, March 16, 2007.
This was written by Ezra HaLevi and it appeared in Arutz Sheva.

Israel's Supreme Court convicted two minors Thursday who took part in anti-expulsion protests prior to the implementation of the Disengagement Plan and the destruction of Jewish towns in Gaza and northern Samaria.

The two had taken part in the blocking of the Geha Highway (Highway 4) on August 16th, 2005 -- on the eve of the forced eviction and after Gaza had already been declared closed to Jews. The two used mattresses to block traffic, which they set on fire.

The Jerusalem District Court ruled earlier that the two were guilty, but not deserving of punishment beyond court-imposed classes on democracy. The State Prosecution appealed the decision, seeking much harsher punishment. The state argued that a large demographic views road blockings as a legitimate form of protest and must be corrected.

The Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision Thursday, convicting the two teens of endangerment of life on a traffic thoroughfare and instructing the lower court to hand down a harsher sentence.

Supreme Court Justice Amnon Rubinstein wrote in his verdict: "We are aware of the basic norms of the defendants and their outstanding contribution on behalf of the public, as well as their expressions of remorse and introspection. But the previous verdict of acquittal was a moderate punishment. Therefore, we decided that in order to fulfill the intent of the lawmaker and in order to deter the public, we are convicting them of this crime...In this regard, the driving ideology heightens the necessity of deterring the public [from engaging in civil disobedience], and there is no need to be verbose in this regard."

Rubinstein went on to criticize the "use of minors" in the struggle against the Disengagement and expressed his hope that the conviction would be a deterrent to others who may seek to wage such a struggle again in the future. "It is not a simple decision in that before us we have people who we believe and hope will perform beneficial service in the IDF and become good citizens, while before us we also have the dictate of the lawmaker -- and especially when dealing with minors, with an emphasis on the individual. But in this case, we tend to lean toward conviction specifically because these dangerous illegal action were part of a political and ideological struggle -- and this must be uprooted. Thus it is upon the Supreme Court to contribute to that end."

Rubinstein said the verdict was aimed most of all at the "leaders" of the anti-expulsion camp and should not prevent the young people from serving in elite IDF units.

The Deputy Head of the Israel Bar Association, Attorney Yariv Levine spoke with Arutz-7 about the ramifications of the convictions. "We are speaking about a very serious verdict that once again positions the Supreme Court on the fringes of Israeli society, further intensifying the public's sweeping lack of faith in the justice system."

Levine added that it is "demonstrated again and again that when it comes to the human rights of supporters of the settlement project, the Supreme Court abstains from fulfilling its duties."

Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 16, 2007.


Conservative British MP Peter Tapsell likened Israel's behavior in Lebanon to the Nazi destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto. Europe did not complain when Sri Lanka killed and wounded a hundred school children, in its defense against Tamil terrorists. Why condemn Israel for fewer casualties and not Sri Lanka? Why not condemn Arabs for mass-murder of Arabs in other Mideast wars? The European media is concerned only about condemning the Jewish state.

Hizbullah stated that it wants genocide. When the President of Iran called for the elimination (i.e. annihilation) of Israel no EU government recalled its ambassador from Iran. Major Norwegian newspapers have Nazi-like cartoons.

The Danish cartoons about Muhammad led to Muslims attacking and burning down European embassies. Did the EU condemn this violence and uphold freedom of the press in Europe? No. It regretted that Muslims found the cartoons offensive. Muslims see from the weak response that they can get away with such outrages.

When an Israeli attack on rockets embedded among civilians accidentally bombed civilians, Europeans immediately and strongly condemned Israel, and did not list Hizbullah as terrorist for illegally risking those civilians. The Europeans failed to suggest how Israel might otherwise fight such an enemy (or whether there is any other way). French TV did not show Hizbullah's bunkers in the midst of civilian housing. It omitted Hizbullah's firing at Israel's civilians.

The Foreign Minister of Italy contends that since Hizbullah has Members of Parliament, it cannot be considered terrorist. (There is no logic to that.) There is no such provision in international law.

The EU seeks to switch terms from "Islamic terrorism" to "terrorism that abusively invokes Islam." That switch makes a theological judgment (and an incorrect one, at that). In any case, Europeans have honored terrorists such as Arafat.

Remember the plot to blow up airplanes between Britain and the US? All the suspects were British-born Muslims. The government is watching thousands of British Muslims. After the arrests, 38 British Muslim organizations and most Muslim MPs told the Prime Minister that British foreign policy on Israel (to which Britain traditionally is hostile) and on Iraq fosters terrorist recruitment. They overlooked major Islamic inciters of terrorism.

Israel must learn it cannot depend on European support against dire menace. Unable to solve the grave problems it created for itself, Europe has no credibility when it tells Israel how to solve its problems (Jewish Political Chronicle, 11/2006, p.35). All the "reasons" adduced by the EU are pretexts for pre-existing antisemitism fanned by media misrepresentation.

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@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, March 16, 2007.

If and when a spaceship, operated by intelligent alien researchers, enters a region of space, surrounding a planet called Earth, they would likely notice one speck of land, highly populated by the planet's, they would deduce, dominant species, located within a vast sparsely populated expanse of desert, except for other highly concentrated population centers here and there. Let us presume such a craft does someday land and intelligent sophisticated life forms disembark. Much time would be spent roaming about studying the dynamics of that dominant species. The space voyagers, no doubt, would encounter a strange phenomenon. The speck of land, they had observed from space, is inhabited by two very different tribes called Israelis and Palestinians, controlling forces in each tribe claim sovereignty over that tiny territory, yet no tribal leader appears to grasp the irony of such counterproductive behavior. Indeed, when measured, that highly populated speck is but two tenths of one percent as large in area as its sparsely populated expansive neighborhood. If Earthlings were logical, the intergalactic researchers thus would conclude, those tribes would buy, rent, or even take more land from perhaps one of its neighbors, allowing one tribe to inhabit that newly acquired parcel. Considering land usage to date, Israelis would be favored to remain on the entire speck of territory known as Israel, including the most hotly contested portions popularly labeled the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, and another portion known as the Golan Heights, apparently desired by one imperialist neighbor Syria, unable to quench its desire for territory, as witnessed by its obsession to control the land usage of another neighbor named Lebanon. Quite obviously, the tribe popularly referred to as Palestinian, the space voyagers would note, has demonstrated no ability to govern itself within Israel, as witnessed by a futile attempt to maintain a reasonable social structure in the Gaza region. Furthermore, the intelligent space travelers would wisely deduce, observing that Palestinians encourage a mutated violent form of suicidal behavior, manifesting in one member wrapping him or herself in explosives and detonating, murdering proximate victims, and learning that such Palestinians danced in the streets, celebrating a deranged erstwhile act of hijacked planes smashing into skyscrapers, murdering thousands of people in a land called America, this tribe desperately needs a change of scenery as well as one collective check up from the neck up. Maybe, settling in another location, starting over again in their original homeland, which the studious researchers realize is Jordan, would somehow revitalize the tribe, reprogramming the addled brains of so many of its members.

Upon further analysis of reports gathered from various planetary media outlets, the space explorers would reach another startling conclusion. Even the presumably wisest Earthlings, movers and shakers residing in so-called sophisticated first world industrial nations, behave as if they have no clue concerning the true state of affairs in the Middle East, and collectively do not seem to grasp that the tiny speck of land known as Israel, as well as one tribe of mankind called Jewish, associated with that homeland, are the best things since sliced pita (in Middle East vernacular) to happen to the dictators of that volatile region. That's right! If it were not for a consciously manipulated Israeli Palestinian conflict, exploited populations, groveling in hovels, especially within fossil fuel rich Middle East regimes, sharing little of their respective government's wealth extorted from fossil fuel dependent industrial nations, would revolt against their leaders, but instead divert anger and spew venom at Israel and Jewish people, the perennial useful nation and ethnicity, defined in Earthly dictionaries as scapegoats, or shlamazels in some texts. "Possibly", theorizes one space explorer, "those aforementioned first world leaders don't want to upset the flow of fossil fuel to their nations, thus really know what's going on but tend to go with the flow as dictated by the crafty fossil fuel dictators." "Furthermore", he stated, "if labeling the government of Israel, truly forced to deploy soldiers and set up checkpoints to protect its citizens from hostile Palestinians, an occupier sits well with Middle East dictators, so be it in their manipulative minds."

A collective sigh of relief issues forth from the mind-boggled space voyagers, now light years away from a dysfunctional planet, heading home towards a distant galaxy, pondering whether their own species eons ago could have been so illogical and so manipulative. "Surely, if that were so, those facts would never have come to light, as such a civilization would have destroyed itself and all associated records, leaving but a few disoriented devolved survivors to start over again from virtual scratch, in an attempt to eventually get it right," asserts one space voyager. "Of course", noted another researcher, "no comprehensive study was possible during such a short visit, so no definitive conclusions are possible concerning Earth's dominant species. Perhaps the Israeli Palestinian conflict is an anomaly, and other Earthlings not directly involved with it have evolved to a higher level. Perhaps illogical behavior and manipulation of facts are uncommon to most other social structures on the planet aside from the Middle East. Perhaps concerted efforts are even being made to wean industrial nations off of fossil fuels." Another voice is heard in the spacecraft, "We will have to come back some other time and see for ourselves. However, I suspect, if we do not come back soon, there may be nothing left to examine. Any species so inclined to disrespect any one tribe implicitly is a species that is deeply disturbed. I would venture to say that illogical behavior and manipulation of facts are likely manifestations of diseased states of mind not confined to but the one sector of the planet we studied. Unless there is an epiphany soon, I am not optimistic as to the fate of the planet." The spaceship continues its journey home, to a distant part of the universe, leaving unstable planet Earth farther and farther behind.

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. 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 luniglicht@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, March 15, 2007.

There's one piece of good news in the report below. If we survive the coming onslaught of Islam, we will know for sure that it had NOTHING to do with the so-called Jewish leaders, either in Israel or abroad. The news item was written by Hillel Fendel, senior news editor for Arutz-Sheva
(www.IsraelNationalNews.com) and it appeared today in Arutz-Sheva.

Leading British-Jewish communal leaders are looking for ways to increase Jews' charitable donations to Israeli-Arabs.

Senior Jewish community leaders taking part in a day-long conference to that end in London last week said that boosting the status and prosperity of the Arabs is vital to Israel's democracy. So reports the EJP (European Jewish Press).

Jewish Agency Chairman Ze'ev Bielski and Israeli Education Minister Yuli Tamir sent their blessings to the conference.

Charles Keidan, director of the Pears Foundation, a Jewish philanthropic organization that organized the event, said, "If we do not give to these causes [of Arabs in Israel], we create imbalances within Israeli society which only serve to undermine our own aim to create a prosperous, just and stable Israel."

Bielski, executive chairman of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency, sent a written blessing to the event: "It is my honor and pleasure to offer my blessings on the occasion of the London symposium on Israeli Arabs."

Similarly, Education Minister Tamir, a founder of Peace Now, wrote, "Enlightened and progressive initiatives such as this demonstrate the commitment and concern that many Jewish people around the world share with the inhabitants of the State of Israel to create a just, stable and democratic country."

"The aim of the event," Keidan told EJP, "was to create an opportunity where the mainstream of the Jewish community could learn more about, and give more to, the role of Arabs in Israel."

A spokesman for the Jewish Agency explained to Arutz-7 that Bielski has long felt that the Arabs of Israel, as full-fledged citizens of the State, must not be discriminated against. "We are not just the Jewish Agency," he said, "but the Jewish Agency of Israel, and this includes all its citizens."

Not all of the Jewish Agency board members agree. Danny Danon, elected Chairman of the World Likud last year, said that Bielski's position is "very grave and stands in opposition to the Zionist movement and the Jewish Agency. It is true that Arabs must be treated equally -- but that's for the government to deal with. The Jewish Agency was created by the Nation of Israel for the people of Israel -- but now he's turning it into UNRWA or something. If someone wants money for the Arab sector, he can go to the Waqf or other bodies in Israel."

Danon said that Bielsky has introduced a change in Jewish Agency policy without bringing it before the Executive Board and the Zionist Congress for discussion and vote. "If he wants to institute changes," Danon said, "he will find that he is in the minority and that the majority wants the Jewish Agency to concentrate on Jewish problems."

Danon said he is still waiting for an answer from Bielsky as to how much money raised during last year's emergency war campaign was diverted to Arab causes. "I asked him how much, and he said it was 'not a lot.' But that could be millions! How can it be that money raised to help Israel during a war is given to Arab municipalities, some of which declared their support for Hizbullah?!"

The Jewish Agency was created in 1929 to represent the Jews in the Holy Land, and its mission statement today still specifies goals in keeping with that objective: "Aliyah, Jewish-Zionist Education, and Partnerships with Israel."

Within two months of the end of last summer's war, some $320 million had been raised for refurbishing the north. Accusations were raised that up to 30% of the money had been used for Arab causes, while a Jewish Agency source said at the time that it was "only" 3%.

Danon explained that donors in the United States could make a difference by informing their local Jewish Federations that they will stop donating money until they hear that all of their money will be used for Jewish causes.

"The way it works," explained Danon, "is that 70-80% of money raised by the Federations is used for local causes, and the rest is funneled back to the Jewish Agency in Israel. If some large donors and many smaller donors threaten to stop giving, the Jewish Agency will have to take notice."

Click here for a detailed article on this topic by Lori Lowenthal Marcus.

Bielski can be emailed at zeevik@jazo.org.il or ask@jafi.org

To contact the UJA Federation of New York, send email to contact@ujafedny.org
the Long Island office: ujali@ujafedny.org
the Westchester office: ujawestchester@ujafedny.org
the Northern Westchester office: ujawestchester@ujafedny.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Matthew S. Finberg, March 15, 2007.

Please learn as much as you can about this extremely important think tank in Israel. Through its efforts led by Professor Eidelberg, Israelis are learning the difference between their old school Israeli democracy and genuine democracy with representative government, a truly independent judiciary, and an effective executive surrounded by a cabinet of his choosing rather than the bastard children conceived in concessions to opponents in order "to form a government," all without compromising Torah. The current executive branch is, by design, condemned to mediocrity at best, and confused ineffectiveness endangering the security of the People.

Once Israeli voters understand that they don't have to live with the disintegrating and dysfunctional parliamentary system inherited from a bygone era which cannot lead our People, they will vote the bums out! Many Israeli voters feel hopeless, that they are stuck with corrupt leaders and are being abandoned by the rest of the nations. FCD will show them through newspaper advertisements, pamphlets, and public presentations that this need not be so!

If we change the system, the dinosaurs will fall by the wayside and authentic Jewish statesmen will take the lead. We cannot afford to have Messrs. Olmert, Peretz, or even Netanyahu making existential decisions when they have already shown that they cannot handle Hamas, Hizbollah, or Iran, and will negotiate on a land for [a false] peace basis.

It's time for the re-Birth of a Nation.
Write to eidelberg@foundation1.org

Thank you for your time and support.
Bahavat Yisrael

The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy
P.O. Box 23702, Jerusalem 91236 Israel
972-2-586-1207 Fax 972-2-586-0141 E-Mail: eidelberg@foundation1.org

March 14, 2007

Dear Friends:

We'd like you to know that various "copy-cat" organizations have sprung up since the Foundation received tax-exempt status from the IRS in 1996. These other organizations, however, have back-tracked on the decisive issue of making members of the Knesset individually elected by and accountable to the voters in constituency or regional elections.

One of these organizations, which has met with Israel's president as well as with MKs, seems to have succumbed to the Establishment. It now proposes to divide the Knesset into 90 constituency seats and thirty party seats. This would not be a bad compromise, except that the organization in question now proposes that any MK who votes against the Government would be "deemed to have resigned," unless the Government authorized MKs to vote their conscience. Constituency MKs would be replaced by the winner of a snap by-election, while occupants of the 30 party seats would be replaced by the next MK on their party's list. Thus, far from being accountable to their constituents, MKs would be subservient to their party leaders -- and more now than previously. Any MK who violated party discipline would instantly lose his job. A nice way to get "reform and entrench the Establishment".

So, if you examine the reform proposals of various organizations, all perpetuate the existing system of governance, which is democratic in name only, and which is incapable of preserving Israel as a Jewish commonwealth. All the more reason, therefore, to support the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, which calls for democratic reform of all three branches of government. We alone propose:

  • A US-styled presidential Executive to replace Israel's inept and divisive system of multiparty cabinet government -- the system that produced Oslo and the most shameless corruption;

  • An independent Legislature to prevent abuses of Executive power, for example, by making agreements or treaties with foreign entities subject to serious public hearings and ratification by the Legislature;

  • A Supreme Court that not only refrains from usurping legislative and executive powers, but also ceases to apply rulings of the International Court of Justice which undermine Israel's sovereignty and Jewish character. (Suffice to mention the ICJ's outrageous ruling that Judea, Samaria, and Gaza constitute "belligerent occupied territory," a ruling refuted by eminent professors of international law.)

Some accomplishments of the Foundation:

  • Drafted a Constitution for the State of Israel which has been adopted by the Yamin Israel party.
  • Drafted law projects and policy papers for various Knesset Members.
  • Publishes books and pamphlets in English, Hebrew, and Russian.
  • Publishes the one and only Journal of Jewish Statesmanship.
  • Publishes monthly articles distributed to the Russian community in Israel.
  • Foundation policy papers appear in Israel's premier Hebrew-language journal Nativ.
  • Conducts seminars in the Foundation's spacious conference room in Jerusalem.
  • Gives lectures throughout Israel to Russian immigrants.
  • Gives weekly reports on Israel National Radio.
  • Contributed to the Attorney-General's indictment of Knesset Member Azmi Bishara who, among other things, urged Israeli Arabs to emulate Hezbollah. (The indictment was quashed by the Supreme Court.)

Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President

Contact matt Finberg at matt@finberglaw.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Aramy, March 15, 2007.

This was written by Frank H. Steward and it appeared today as an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/opinion/15stewart.html?pagewanted=print). Frank H. Stewart is a professor in the department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a visiting scholar at New York University.


LAST summer, the Archbishop of Algeria remarked to this newspaper that when satellite dishes first appeared in Algeria, they were typically positioned to receive French broadcasts. Now the majority receive programming from the Persian Gulf.

"If you watch Western television, you live in one universe," said the archbishop, "and if you watch Middle Eastern television, you live in another altogether." The Middle Eastern broadcasts, he added, tended to depict the West in a negative light.

Washington is well aware of this problem and has tried to address it. In 2004, the United States established its own Arabic-language satellite television station, Al Hurra. But Al Hurra has not been a success, and stations like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiyya, based in the Gulf states, continue to dominate the region.

Those stations will soon face a formidable rival. The BBC World Service plans to start an Arabic television service this fall, and the BBC knows what it is doing. It has been broadcasting in Arabic on the radio for more than 60 years and has a huge audience.

This new television station might sound like good news for America. Many of us pick up BBC broadcasts in English, and we respect their quality. But the World Service in English is one thing, and the World Service in Arabic is another entirely. If the BBC's Arabic TV programs resemble its radio programs, then they will be just as anti-Western as anything that comes out of the Gulf, if not more so. They will serve to increase, rather than to diminish, tensions, hostilities and misunderstandings among nations.

For example, a 50-minute BBC Arabic Service discussion program about torture discussed only one specific allegation, which came from the head of an organization representing some 90 Saudis imprisoned at Guantnamo. This speaker stated that the prisoners were subject to disgusting and horrible forms of torture and suggested that three inmates reported by the United States to have committed suicide were actually killed. Another participant insisted that the two countries guilty of torturing political prisoners on the largest scale were Israel and the United States.

At the same time, the authoritarian regimes and armed militants of the Arab world get sympathetic treatment on BBC Arabic. When Saddam Hussein was in power, he was a great favorite of the service, which reported as straight news his re-election to a seven-year term in 2002, when he got 100 percent of the vote. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria enjoys similar favor. When a State Department representative referred to Syria as a dictatorship, his BBC interviewer immediately interrupted and reprimanded him.

The Arabic Service not only shields Arab leaders from criticism but also tends to avoid topics they might find embarrassing: human rights, the role of military and security forces, corruption, discrimination against minorities, censorship, poverty and unemployment. When, from time to time, such topics do arise, they are usually dealt with in the most general terms: there may, for instance, be guarded references to "certain Arab countries."

By contrast, the words and deeds of Western leaders, particularly the American president and the British prime minister, are subject to minute analysis, generally on the assumption that behind them lies a hidden and disreputable agenda. Last summer, when the British arrested two dozen people alleged to have been plotting to blow up airplanes crossing the Atlantic, a BBC presenter centered a discussion on the theory that these arrests had taken place because Tony Blair, embarrassed by opposition to Britain's role in the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, wanted to distract the public while at the same time associating Muslims with terrorism.

The British are among our closest and most reliable allies, and it is strange that their government pays for these broadcasts, many of which are produced in Cairo rather than in London. If the BBC models its Arabic television service on its Arabic radio service, yet another anti-Western, antidemocratic channel will find its place on the Arab screen.

Contact Aramy by email at aramy964@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 15, 2007.

This was written by Ed Lasky, who is news editor of American Thinker
(www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/ splitting_the_evangelicals_fro.html). It appeared March 15, 2007.

A new strategy seems to be emerging that seeks to weaken American support for Israel.

While there has been much attention given to challenges Israel faces on college campuses, in the media, and increasingly in the halls of Congress, the historically solid and vitally important support given by Evangelical Christians towards Israel is now being threatened. How is this happening and who are the actors?

Evangelicals support Israel for a variety of reasons, among them a belief that Israel is a fellow democracy with which we share a common Western culture and that we value as a friend. Israel has also been victimized by Islamic terrorism, as have we. Israel is also a strategic ally in the war against Islamic radicalism -- a lone Western outpost in a faraway land that gave birth to two major religions: Judaism and Christianity-the foundation of Western civilization.

However, the core reason that Evangelicals have an affection for the Jewish people and a strong desire to protect Israel is found, unsurprisingly, in the Bible.

What may surprise people is that the foundation of this support has nothing to do with end-of-days scenarios or the desire to convert the Jews. Instead, there is a belief that God has a covenant with the Jewish people and with Israel. Christians have a religious mandate to support Israel. Throughout the Bible there is language that calls upon Christians to honor and cherish the Jewish people. A key section is found in the very first book of the Bible: Genesis. The promise of Genesis 12:3 regarding the Jewish people is

"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse".

The Bible also commands Christians to pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6), to speak out for Zion's sake (Isaiah 62:1), and to be watchmen on the walls of Jerusalem (Isaiah 62:6)

To people who interpret Israel to mean the Jews -- such as evangelical Christians -- Genesis becomes an exhortation to both Zionism and philo-Semitism. (see this Q and A with author David Brog at
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/05/evangelicals_and_israel_an_int.html for a further explanation of the basis of Christian Zionism). There is also a feeling of sympathy for the Jews -- given the tragic history of Christian anti-Semitism in Europe.

Efforts are now underway to erode this base of support. While it is unlikely that there is a concerted effort among the foes of Israel, they do seem to be operating from a common playbook. The tactics seem to rely on a few simple but potentially perilous ideas. One avenue of attack is to question the theology behind the Biblical mandate to "bless the Jews". Another is to portray Israelis as oppressing Christians in an attempt to evoke imagery from the Bible regarding the trials and tribulations of Jesus. In so doing, they are attempting to weaken the sympathy that is one of the hallmarks of Christian Zionism.

The theological argument that a bond no longer exists between God and the Jews (and by extension Israel) is known as "replacement" theology. The Jerusalem-based Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, an anti-Israel Palestinian Christian group, has been among those groups most actively promoting this spurious doctrine. Adherents believe that Jews fell from divine favor when they refused to accept Christ and that God chose the Church (Christians) to replace them. Therefore Christians have no religious obligation to support the Jewish people. Sabeel has at times gone beyond this doctrine and has gone to the next "step" and cast Israel as the new "Rome" whose government is a "crucifixion system." The head of Sabeel has called Israelis "Herods" and has linked their behavior to the acts of the Romans that killed Jesus. The Anglican Church in England seems sympathetic to this view. This might be expected since "replacement " theology has taken hold in Europe while it has been rejected so far by most American churches.

However, there are disconcerting signs that this favorable state of affairs may be changing. The old "mainline" churches such as the Presbyterians have leaders who support the Palestinian narrative. As Hugh Hewitt has noted about his own Presbyterian Church, whose leadership has been very receptive to proposals to disinvest from companies doing business with Israel, the governing body seems to be heavily influenced by key leaders who are either Palestinian Christians or have close ties to Palestinians.

Sabeel periodically gives road shows to propagate this view. The group has had some success: at a recent conference in Chicago, attendees included representatives from a clutch of organizations: Churches for Middle East Peace, American Friends Service Committee (Quakers), the Lutheran Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Wheat Ridge Ministries. Their efforts have begun to transcend trying to spread their "gospel" beyond Church groups to lobbying Congress. An upcoming Sabeel conference will feature Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a former Democrat candidate for President.

Jimmy Carter also wants a role in trying to divide Evangelicals. His recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is replete with factual errors, misrepresentations, plagiarism, and outright fabrication. Perceptive critics have pointed out that Carter seems to have a barely hidden agenda in writing the book: to weaken Christian support for Israel.

What seems to have escaped these critics' grasp (they may be less conversant with Christian theology than Carter -- after all, didn't Carter complain about his "Jewish" book critics) is that Carter is primarily speaking to a Christian audience. His narrative may resonate with them in a way that reviewers may not appreciate. For, in attacking Israel the way he chose to do, he is promoting a view that there is no longer a covenant between Jews and God that Christians are bound to honor. His book, in short, is a brief in support of "replacement theology".

How can this be so? In Carter's view, Israel has become a secular nation. No longer being a nation of the Jews, carrying Carterisian (ill) logic to its conclusion, it has broken its covenant with God. Therefore, it can no longer be offered either the support or the blessings of Christians.

Rick Richman found Carter using this ploy several times in his relatively small book.

In Carter's eyes, Israel fails a "religious test": it is no longer a nation of Jews..

In his book, Carter describes visits to several kibbutzim and found that on the Sabbath only two worshippers appeared at the synagogue. When he asked if this was typical, the "guide gave a wry smile and shrugged his shoulders as if it was not important either way". When Carter participated in a graduation ceremony at an Israel Defense Forces training camp, Carter presented a Hebrew bible to each graduate, "which was one of the few indications of a religious commitment that I observed during our visit". At the end of his visit, he meets with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. He told her that he had taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures and that a common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of her Labor government". Not only does Carter seem to castigate Israel for losing its religious bearings but also he seems to call upon the wrath of God to punish her for her transgressions.

Another perceptive reviewer was of the opinion that Carter wasn't writing for Arabs or Jews, but that

"...he was aiming at American Christians, particularly the evangelicals who are among Israel's most ardent supporters."

Michael Jacobs, writing in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution echoes Richman is noting that Carter harped upon Israel's secular nature. Michael Jacobs notes that Carter seems to take the same tack as the Sabeel in trying to depict Israelis as oppressors of Christians. He writes that Carter

"repeatedly refers to Israeli oppression of Christians, destruction of Christian holy sites and the imprisonment of Bethlehem."

Jeffrey Goldberg reviewed Carter's book for the Washington Post and wrote,

"A specific agenda appears to be at work here. Carter seems to mean for the book to convince American evangelicals to reconsider their support for Israel. Evangelical Christians have become bedrock supporters of Israel lately, and Carter marshals many arguments, most of them specious, to scare them out of their position". He notes the aforementioned Golda Meir story and states that is was meant to show that Israel is not the God-fearing nation that religious Christians believe it to be. And then there are the accusations, unsupported by actual evidence, that Israel persecutes Christians." Carter, for example, had written that 'it was especially interesting to visit with some of the few surviving Samaritans, who complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities-the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years ago". Goldberg notes the absurdity of this remark -- "there are no references to Israeli authorities in the Christian Bible. Only a man who sees Israel as a lineal descendant of the Pharisees could write such a sentence." That phrase alone should be a tip-off that something murky is at work in Carter: he is attempting to demonize Israelis by evoking the painful experience of Jesus 2000 years ago. He again tries to drill this "point" in to his readers when he writes that the security fence (that has saved so many Israeli lives) itself is a crime against Christianity because it "ravages many places along its devious route that are important to Christians".

What may be most disconcerting with this type of language is that it conjures up anti-Semitic images and cartoons that are now popular in certain European media outlets and are widespread in the Arab world. Carter rails against Israel by tying its purported mistreatment of Christians (his allegations will be disproved below) to the harrowing experience of Jesus Christ two thousand years ago. This is a hoary anti-Semitic trope. How similar is Carter's verbal treatment to the visual treatment meted out to Israel by, for example, by the Italian newspaper La Stampa a few years ago. There a front-page cartoon ran that is now widely considered anti-Semitic. This cartoon showed a tank emblazoned with a Star of David pointing its gun at the baby Jesus, who tells the attackers, "Surely they don't want to kill me again".

Other harsh anti-Israel critics have followed this line of attack in a somewhat less theological way. For example, Professors Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a "working paper" on the so-called "Israel Lobby" that, similar to Carter's book, was roundly criticized as being riddled with errors and bias. However, it has enjoyed a great deal of publicity and will soon be followed by a book on the same topic by the authors.

One of the lines of arguments that try to get readers to swallow is that Israel is not deserving of the sympathy that has been a hallmark of Christian support for Israel because of supposed mistreatment of Palestinians (both Christian and Muslim).

Similarly, the well-known anti-Israel columnist Robert Novak has a penchant shared with Carter for demonizing Israel for its supposed maltreatment of Christians. He has written numerous columns claiming that Israel's security fence has prevented Christians from exercising religious freedom and has caused an exodus from the Holy Land (refuted by Justus Reid Weiner at
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&TMID=111&LNGID= 1&FID=377&PID=0&IID=1371). The Council for National Interest (CNI) is a harshly anti-Israel group that lobbies on Capitol Hill and elsewhere against Israel. CNI publishes full-page ads in major American newspapers that are marked by anti-Semitic imagery. These ads have specifically attempted to erode Christian sympathy and support for Israel. On Christmas Eve this group ran an ad headlined "Is Bethlehem Dying" that depicts three Magi riding atop camels blocked from arriving into Bethlehem by a concrete barrier. In the foreground a bird tells the wise men, "It's gonna be a little harder this time around". This was far from the only attempt to use the Christmas Story to defame Israel. All of these criticisms of Israel are expressly designed to erode Christian support for Israel. They are also lies.

Christians are fleeing the Holy Land. Palestinian Christians have a higher rate of emigration than Palestinian Muslims and the Palestinian population has plunged from 20% after World War II to less than 1.7% now. Research demonstrates that the precipitous decline of the Christian population is primarily a result of social, economic and religious discrimination within Palestinian society in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This should not be surprising. Under the Palestinian Authority Constitution, Islamic law is given primacy over all other sources of law. The Hamas Charter is even harsher when it comes to respecting the Christian religion.

As one researcher -- Justus Reid Weiner at
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&TMID=111&LNGID= 1&FID=377&PID=0&IID=1371 -- states:

From Christian Arabs under the thumb of the PA, I have heard testimony of forced marriages of Christian women to Muslim men, death threats against Christians for distributing the Bible to willing Muslims, and Christian women intimidated into wearing traditional ultra-modest Islamic clothing. Churches have been firebombed (most recently in Nablus, Tubas, and Gaza when the Pope made his controversial remarks) and/or shot up repeatedly. And this is the tip of the iceberg. Under the Palestinian Authority, whose constitution gives Islamic law primacy over all other sources of law, Christian Arabs have found their land expropriated by Muslim thieves and thugs with ties to the PA's land registration office. Christians have been forced to pay bribes to win the freedom of family members jailed on trumped-up charges. And Arabs -- Christians and Muslims alike -- have been selling or abandoning homes and businesses to escape the chaos of the PA and move to Israel, Europe, South America, North America, or wherever they can get a visa.

See also the book, Human Rights of Christians in Palestinian Society.

Tony Pearce, pastor of the Bridge Christian Fellowship, in contrast notes,

"that the Christian Arab population within the pre-1967 borders of Israel has grown from 34,000 in 1948 to 130,000 in 2005. Ironically this is the only part of the Middle East where the Christian population is growing (Editor's note: at the end of the 19th century, 13% of the population of the Middle East was Christian. Today it is 2% and headed down)... The main reason for the departure of Christians from PA administered territories is the religious persecution, murder and land grabs which stems from the increased Islamisation of the region. This is the result of the PA adopting Muslim religious law in the territories in contrast to Israel which safeguards the religious freedom on its citizens."

Lest we forget, it was Muslim terrorists who defiled the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002. While fleeing Israeli Defense Forces, they forced their way into the Church and held clerics hostage. They knew Israel respected religious buildings more than they themselves did, and they were right. Israel eventually agreed to let these terrorists leave the Church and travel to Europe in order to avoid harm to the Church. Regardless of the deal reached with Israelis and church officials, the Church itself had been ransacked and damaged by the terrorists. This history was of course expunged from the Council of National Interest ad that attacked Israel for conditions inside Bethlehem. Oh... and the mayor whose criticism towards Israel was quoted in the ad? CNI neglected to mention that he was elected with the support of Hamas, a terror group that is now the government in the West Bank and Gaza.

I wonder how the Bethlehem mayor would respond to this report by Khaled Abu Toameh, a brave Israeli Arab journalist that ran on January 25th of this year. In "Bethlehem Christians fear neighbors" Toameh describes Bethlehem Christians gripped by fear due to the persecution they are suffering as a minority under Muslim rule. They have finally decided to speak up:

The move comes as a result of increased attacks on Christians by Muslims over the past few months. The families said they wrote letters to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, the Vatican, Church leaders and European governments complaining about the attacks, but their appeals have fallen on deaf ears.

According to the families, many Christians have long been afraid to complain in public about the campaign of "intimidation" for fear of retaliation by their Muslim neighbors and being branded "collaborators" with Israel.

But following an increase in attacks on Christian-owned property in the city over the past few months, some Christians are no longer afraid to talk about the ultra-sensitive issue. And they are talking openly about leaving the city.

"The situation is very dangerous," said Samir Qumsiyeh, owner of the Beit Sahur-based private Al-Mahd (Nativity) TV station. "I believe that 15 years from now there will be no Christians left in Bethlehem. Then you will need a torch to find a Christian here. This is a very sad situation."

Qumsiyeh, one of the few Christians willing to speak about the harsh conditions of their community, has been the subject of numerous death threats. His house was recently attacked with firebombs, but no one was hurt.

Qumsiyeh said he has documented more than 160 incidents of attacks on Christians in the area in recent years.

He said a monk was recently roughed up for trying to prevent a group of Muslim men from seizing lands owned by Christians in Beit Sahur. Thieves have targeted the homes of many Christian families and a "land mafia" has succeeded in laying its hands on vast areas of land belonging to Christians, he added.

Fuad and Georgette Lama woke up one morning last September to discover that Muslims from a nearby village had fenced off their family's six-dunam plot in the Karkafa suburb south of Bethlehem. "A lawyer and an official with the Palestinian Authority just came and took our land," said 69-year-old Georgette Lama.

The couple was later approached by senior PA security officers who offered to help them kick out the intruders from the land. "We paid them $1,000 so they could help us regain our land," she said, almost in tears. "Instead of giving us back our land, they simply decided to keep it for themselves. They even destroyed all the olive trees and divided the land into small plots, apparently so that they could offer each for sale." When her 72-year-old husband, Fuad, went to the land to ask the intruders to leave, he was severely beaten and threatened with guns. "My husband is after heart surgery and they still beat him," Georgette Lama said. "These people have no heart. We're afraid to go to our land because they will shoot at us. Ever since the beating, my husband is in a state of trauma and has difficulties talking."

The Lamas have since knocked on the doors of scores of PA officials in Bethlehem seeking their intervention, but to no avail. At one stage, they sent a letter to Abbas, who promised to launch an investigation.

There have been many other examples of Muslims attacking Palestinian Christians. See the editorial "Christians attacked" involving an attack on a Christian village in the West Bank, setting buildings on fire and destroying a statue of the Virgin Mary; "Christians threatened," where Christians in the Gaza Strip had buildings bombed and warned them to close up missionary buildings or face destruction. An interview with Justus Weiner, "Persecuting the holy Land Christians" gives an even fuller picture of the oppression of Christians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, giving lie to the claims that Israel harms Christians.

Even within Israel's pre-1967 borders, Muslims have been attacking Christians so there can be no claim that Israel's security fence is the cause of the conflict. In Nazareth, the home of Jesus and the site of many Christian shrines, Muslims have held large militant marches through the main street, shouting, "Islam will dominate the world" and exclaiming, "Allah is great". Christians report attacks against Christian shops and told stories of violence against women and men perpetrated by Muslim residents. The city that should be a place of celebration and be filled with the spirit of conciliation and peace has become a city of dread.

This pattern of oppression of Christians at the hands of Muslims is part of a widespread Middle Eastern phenomenon and has a long history which people such as Jimmy Carter and Robert Novak ignore. Conversely, Christians have found Israel to be a very comforting and congenial place to live. As former Congressman Jack Kemp wrote in response to a Robert Novak column attempting to criticize Israel for the purported effects of the security fence on Christians,

Contrary to the thrust of the Novak column, Israel's Christian population has in fact prospered and quadrupled in size over the last half century, in sharp contrast to the dwindling Christian communities in other countries in the Middle East. The continued dwindling of Christian communities in the Palestinian areas can be directly traced to the constant harassment to which they have been subjected by Islamic extremists. As a Christian, I am extremely troubled, as every American should be, by the implications of the Hamas victory in the recent Palestinian elections for the continued thriving of the Christian heritage in the Holy Land.

In contrast, never in history have residents in Jerusalem enjoyed more freedom of access to the holy places as under Israel's sovereignty. Israel's founding ethos, anchored in its declaration of independence, guarantees freedom of religion and conscience while safeguarding the holy places of all religions. Such is the case with every church, monastery and holy site in the country, many of which have been rebuilt and refurbished in recent years by the state of Israel.

In planning the route of the barrier, particularly in the vicinity of Jerusalem, where population density, religious and international interests intersect, Israel has demonstrated particular sensitivity to Christian concerns. The route was determined and in several cases altered, after a comprehensive dialogue with representatives of the various Church denominations. The ongoing consultations and effort to accommodate denominational interests put the lie to the notion that Israel supposedly seeks to "destroy" or "shatter" these communities.

Nevertheless, this type of research was of little interest to Jimmy Carter, Sabeel supporters, or their allies in trying to turn Christians against Israel. Nor have they been satisfied with mere written and verbal attacks. A new front has been opened in the battle for the hearts and minds of evangelical Christians with the goal of supplanting the leaders of the evangelical community who have been strongly pro-Israel with leaders and groups who are noticeably less supportive of Israel.

For example, Jim Wallis seems to have enjoyed a blaze of publicity lately as an Evangelical leader that Democrats in particular have tried to enlist as a supporter. Wallis is clearly on the left-wing of the evangelical movement. He also has a clearly anti-Israel history. He blames America's allegedly unjust support for Israel for our problems with the Arab world. He castigates Israel for an "unjust" level of violence in Lebanon and wrote,

"It's time to challenge the theology of Christian Zionism advanced by many of the American Religious Right, who are completely uncritical of Israel's behavior and totally oblivious to the sufferings (or even the existence) of Arab Christians in the Middle East."

He writes in an article highly critical of Israel's activity in Lebanon (titled "The Body of Christ in Lebanon" -- it is clearly intended to evoke the sufferings of Christ) of Arab Christians who are

"certainly not supportive of the highly disproportionate military response of Israel which now target their own families and fellow Arab Christians."

Israel "targets" Christians? Not true. Israel takes great pains to avoid harming civilians. Wallis's silence regarding Hezbollah-Muslim-oppression of these Lebanese Christians is deafening. His magazine, Sojourners, has been a forum for anti-Israel voices: one article was entitled, "Inside Israeli Apartheid".

However, the sudden prominence of Wallis is just one indication that forces are at work to shift the allegiance of Evangelicals. Recently, Jimmy Carter (along with Bill Clinton) has announced a new effort to bring together moderate Baptists in a "robust coalition" that would serve as a counterweight to the conservative Southern Baptist Convention (the SBC). This is Carter's brainchild and had its springboard launch at the Carter Center in Atlanta. (The Carter Center is heavily-funded by Arab Muslims: will Arab oil wealth be used to influence evangelicals against Israel?) The invited churches have a combined membership of more than 20 million, outnumbering the Southern Baptist Convention. Clearly, Carter has an agenda in forming such a coalition. Dr. Richard Land, head of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, probably spotted the goal. In noting that there would be areas of disagreement with the group being assembled by Carter and the Southern Baptist Convention, he highlighted one in particular when he stated in a Washington Post article,

"...one of the areas where there would be significant disagreement would be our view towards Israel, as highlighted by President Carter's new book". That certainly is a prophetic comment.

Is it a coincidence, given the deliberately provocative use of the word "Apartheid" in the title of his book, that many of the church groups behind his coalition are historically black churches (among the fastest-growing evangelical populations in America and the world)? Did Carter hope by charging Israel with "apartheid" to turn African-Americans against Israel? Will he attempt to lobby against Israel among the evangelicals in his new coalition? Why not? He has everywhere else.

Clearly, Israel enjoys strong support within the evangelical movement. Groups such as the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (founded by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein) have pioneered the way in fostering close ties between the Jewish community, Israel and the evangelicals. Former Presidential candidate Gary Bauer has also been a leader in trying to mobilize evangelicals to support Israel. More recently, Pastor John Hagee, who has been in the forefront among evangelicals in supporting Israel, formed Christians United for Israel to serve as a lobbying group for Israel and has already achieved great success. The superb recent book by Michael Oren, Power, Faith and Fantasy; America in the Middle East 1776 to the Present, illuminates the fact that affection for the Jewish people has a long history in America: it is part of the DNA of America's religious and civic culture, and predates the rise of evangelicals as a powerful voice within America.

However, history has taught the Jewish people that complacency is perilous. The belief that there is a covenant between God and the Jews that must be honored by Christians has only recently (when considering the grand scope of Christian history) enjoyed the prominence that it so does now. Efforts to convince Christians that this covenant has been broken will erode Christian support for Jews and for Israel, as will spurious accusations that Israel harms Christians in the Middle East.

What can we do to help ensure that the evangelical and Jewish communities remain friends during this time of worldwide anti-Semitism and existential threats to Israel?

Friendships need to be appreciated and nurtured. Yet there are still many Jews who are wary of this embrace by Christians. The reasons commonly given for this reluctance are: fear of Christian anti-Semitism, a misunderstanding regarding the motives for Christian support, and differing domestic agendas.

In fact, Christian anti-Semitism has been a primarily European phenomenon. Evangelical Christians are probably the most philo-Semitic group in the world today. Evangelicals do not support Israel for end-of-days or for conversionary motives (the aforementioned David Brog book would enlighten many people on this issue).

Lastly the differing domestic agendas should not unduly bother American Jews. We are both heirs to a grand Western Judeo-Christian heritage and share many common values. We are both groups under attack from the forces of Islamic extremism. In the words of Pastor Hagee,

"...what we have in common is far greater than the differences we have allowed to divide us."

Evangelicals have not asked Jews to promote their policies; there is no quid pro quo (or political trading of favors) involved in their support for Israel which, for them, is a biblical mandate that predates the concept of democracy. Perhaps the best prescription to reduce anxiety might be to remember this phrase: be not afraid.

Zev Chafets (a Jewish American who made aliyah to Israel years ago) has written a new book on the relationship between American Evangelicals, Jews and Israel, A Match Made in Heaven: American Jews, Christian Zionists and One Man's Exploration of the Weird and Wonderful Judeo-Evangelical Alliance, reviewed in Commentary Magazine at
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10821. (see also interviews with the author
at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerGuest.jhtml?itemNo=807769 and
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6902413). Chafets explores the ties between the communities. He also is mindful of their different domestic agendas.

His response? So what? In a time of turmoil when Israel faces peril as never before, the affection and support that evangelicals extend to Jews and to Israel should be cherished and appreciated for what it is: a gift from God.

Will Jimmy Carter and his allies rend asunder what God hath joined together? Only time will tell.

The Bible also commands Christians to pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6), to speak out for Zion's sake (Isaiah 62:1), and to be watchmen on the walls of Jerusalem (Isaiah 62:6)

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 15, 2007.

A bit of insight in to Arab social and governmental priorities:

The following are UNESCO figures for the entire Arab world (21 states and the Palestinian Authority):

One Trillion One Hundred Billion dollars ($1,100,000,000,000.00) on weapons -- annually.

three hundred billion dollars ($300,000,000,000.00) on advertising -- annually

five hundred billion dollars ($500,000,000,000.00) on tobacco -- annually.

education: too small to accomodate on the charts.

Six billion dollars needed ($6,000,000,000.00) annually to eradicate illiteracy.

sixty million people are illiterate in the arab world (= 20%) (60,000,000).

They would not even need to reduce their weapons budget.

So, if they shifted just 1% of what they spend on tobacco (i.e., c. one pack of cigarrettes per person per year, assuming that the average smoker smokes 2 packs per week) and 0.334% of their advertising budget...they would have the $6,000,000,000 they need to teach their kids and illiterate adults to read.

The report below does not say this, but I know from other sources that most of that 60,000,000 (= 20%) are women.

That is why (I suspect) the UNESCO report avoids creating a mechanism for actually taking action with the fund...too many problems with educating women in the Arab world...but the fund without the mechanism for implementing change at least looks good...looks like they are addressing the problem; and does not threaten the status quo.

We see the same pattern with Hamas, on a smaller scale.

Plenty of money for weapons, and for anti-Israel propaganda -- but no money for teachers.

"Almost 60 million illiterate in Arab world"
Agence France-Presse
15 March, 2007

A UNESCO conference on Wednesday proposed the setting up a fund to combat illiteracy which affects almost 60 million inhabitants of the Arab world. The conference in Qatar's capital urged Arab leaders to combat illiteracy in a region "where 58 million people don't know how to read or write, apart from the 6.5 million children not in school."

It proposed the creation of a regional fund but without suggesting a mechanism.

Basic education needs six billion dollars a year in the Arab world, which according to UN figures has an overall population of almost 300 million people, said Omani Mussa bin Jaffar bin Hassan of the UN's cultural body.

This amount is "minimal in a world where more than 1,100 billion dollars (DML: one thousand billion is a trillion) are spent on the military, 300 billion on advertising, and 500 billion on tobacco (industry) each year," he said.

Koichiro Matsuura, director general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, told reporters that Yemen, Sudan and Mauritania were the countries most in need of help to fight illiteracy.

"Illiteracy in the Arab world is a disgrace," said Mongi Bousnina, head of the Arab League Education, Science and Culture Organization (ALESCO).

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, March 15, 2007.

Who can forget David Hatuel, the young father from Gush Katif whose beautiful wife Tali and four beautiful daughters were murdered in cold blood by a Palestinan terrorist, who opened fire on the pregnant mother and her four little girls, killing them all as they sat in their car?

As we think back on the events of the Intifada, so many horrors, nevertheless this stands out in our minds as the ultimate expression of barbarity from our enemies, and the ultimate challenge to our strength to continue our lives in the land of our forefathers.

David, quiet, modest, said that he had two choices: To disintergate and fall, or to live. He chose life. A year ago, he remarried. Today, 37 year-old David holds in his arms another baby girl, born of his second marriage to Limor, an occupational therpist.

This is the ultimate answer we Jews have to give our enemies. This is our secret, why we are still here when so many other peoples have become extinct. It is David Hatuel's answer: choose life. Rebuild.

May God bless him and his wife and child with every blessing known to mankind. My he and his kind flourish and prosper, and give example to the rest of mankind. And may our enemies, who choose death and destruction, reap what they sow.


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

To Go To Top

Posted by NGO Monitor, March 15, 2007.

On December 10, 2006, Ken Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), spoke at a conference sponsored by the North American branch of Rabbis for Human Rights.[1] Roth's presentation consisted of a defense of HRW's credibility and agenda, particularly with respect to Israel, following criticism published by NGO Monitor and elsewhere. On March 3, 2007, Tikkun magazine printed an edited version of his comments.

The following is an analysis of Roth's claims, including numerous inconsistencies, distortions, and omissions:

1) On the criticism of HRW for failing to distinguish between aggressor (as in the case of Hezbollah in the 2006 war) and defender (Israel), Roth attempts to use international legal claims, acknowledging that "a source of frustration for some people is that the Geneva Conventions do not take sides. They are neutral about the purposes of a war, they do not identify who the defender is and who the aggressor is, they do not say who's right and who's wrong, they look simply at how the war is fought ... We look at jus in bello, the way the war is fought, not jus ad bellum, whether it was right or just to go to war."

NGO Monitor's Analysis: This portrayal of international law is selective, incomplete, and self-serving. Under international law, the only legitimate uses of force are for purposes of self-defense or pursuant to Security Council authorization under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Article 51 of the UN Charter, for instance, states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Under Article 2(4) of the Charter, states are prohibited from engaging in illegitimate use of force: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." As international law precedents make clear, militias like Hezbollah, given de facto authority by the government of Lebanon, are bound to follow the legal commitments of the state. Lebanon is a signatory of the UN Charter, and Hezbollah, whose officials are also members of the cabinet, is obligated to abide by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Therefore, Hezbollah's attack on Israel was illegal under any interpretation of international law, and there is both a moral and legal basis for distinguishing between aggressor and defender under the laws of war. HRW and Roth selectively chose to ignore these aspects in promoting their political agenda.

2) Responding to the criticism of HRW's credibility ("fact finding"), Roth stated that "after a researcher returns from an investigation and writes up a report it must go through a series of experts: legal experts, policy experts, and people who double-check the fact-finding."

NGO Monitor's Analysis: Roth's general response does not attempt to explain the numerous examples of HRW statements that were false or based on unverifiable sources. For example, on August 1, during the Israel-Hezbollah war, after an Israeli strike against Qana in southern Lebanon, HRW immediately issued a press release based entirely on unverifiable "eyewitness claims," labeling the bombing "indiscriminate" and a "war crime" before any such determination could be reasonably made, and declaring that "at least 54 civilians have been killed." The number of Lebanese killed was reduced subsequently and there are conflicting reports on many of the details. HRW, while belatedly revising the casualty estimate to half, did not remove the original statement from its website and repeated the allegations of "war crimes" and the absence of Hezbollah elements (rockets, fighters, etc.), based on claims made by people possibly connected to Hezbollah. Indeed, on December 5, the Center for Special Studies in Israel (C.S.S.) issued a detailed report on "the extensive military infrastructure positioned and hidden by Hezbollah in populated areas." The report documented a significant Hezbollah presence in and around Qana: 3 rockets were fired from within civilian houses, 36 within a 200 meter radius, and 106 within a 500 meter radius of the village.[2] The report also showed an aerial photograph of a weapons storehouse located next to a mosque in Qana.[3] Roth ignores these facts, and enormous impact of such false reports. And as a study published by Harvard University notes, "Most reporters used the higher of the two estimates, some describing the scene as a massacre. It made for more sensational copy."[4]

3) Roth claims that HRW interviews witnesses and victims of human rights abuses with "an enormous dose of skepticism" because of their tendency to lie.

NGO Monitor's Analysis: In contrast to Roth's claim, HRW's statements demonstrate that the organization routinely uses such witnesses without any evidence of "skepticism". During the Israel-Hezbollah war, for example, HRW repeatedly relied on "eyewitnesses" from south Lebanon, where Hezbollah is politically and ideologically dominant. In a July 31 op-ed published in The Guardian (UK), Peter Bouckaert, HRW's Emergencies Director, dismissed Israel's statement that Hezbollah used human shields based on testimony from "villagers", labeling the IDF's assertion "a convenient excuse." In HRW's August 3 report entitled "Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon", Hashem Kazan, an HRW witness interviewed regarding a July 15 attack on Bint Jbeil, claimed that "there was no fighting taking place in the village -- there was no one but civilians." In contrast, the CSS report included an aerial photograph of 20 bases and 5 weapons storehouses in the village[5], also documenting 87 rockets fired from within village houses, 109 from within a 200 meter radius, and 136 within a 500 meter radius.[6]

Furthermore, when credible evidence is available, HRW often ignores it if it does not support the dominant political position. On May 27, 2006 in a television interview, Hassan Nasaralah boasted '[Hezbollah fighters] live in their houses, in their schools, in their churches, in their fields, in their farms and in their factories...You can't destroy them in the same way you would destroy an army.[7]

4) Roth acknowledges HRW's close relationships with local organizations, and that since "some are more reliable than others," they need to be treated with skepticism.

NGO Monitor's Analysis: HRW often relies on highly politicized Palestinian NGOs, and the resulting reports show no evidence of skepticism. For example, on June 9, eight Palestinians were killed on a Gaza beach in disputed circumstances. Amnesty International and several Palestinian NGOs, including Miftah, Al Mezan and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights issued condemnations of Israel in the days following. On the basis of this concerted campaign, including clearly staged video, HRW dispatched Marc Garlasco, who claims to be a former Pentagon "battle damage expert," to investigate. In a widely publicized press conference in Gaza. Garlasco repeated the claims that "the evidence overwhelmingly supports the allegations that the civilians were killed by artillery shells fired by the IDF" accepting the Palestinian position. He simply ignored the detailed evidence to the contrary, including shrapnel removed from the victims taken to Israel for treatment. (Garlasco was also among the authors of HRW's "Razing Rafah" report of 2004, which contained many unverifiable and disputed claims, and erased the context of terror.)

5) Roth stated that "while there were serious problems," HRW "put to rest" the international allegation of an Israeli "massacre" in Jenin.

NGO Monitor's Analysis: The record shows that HRW was disproportionately critical of Israel in its reporting on the events in Jenin, and its statements on the massacre myth were late and incomplete. In May 2002, HRW published a statement headlined "Jenin War Crimes Investigation Needed" followed by a detailed report entitled Jenin: IDF Military Operations, which alleged that "Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes" adding that "particularly in the Hawashin district, the destruction extended well beyond any conceivable purpose of gaining access to fighters." The report was based on anecdotal and unsubstantiated testimony from what HRW described as "first-hand observers", and erased the context of mass terror attacks on Israelis. [8] Both documents remain on the HRW website. Furthermore, HRW's major report on Palestinian terror, Erased in a Moment: Suicide Bombing attacks against Israeli Civilians -- not published until October 2002, did not, as Roth claims, reveal "who at the top was responsible for ordering these murders." Instead, HRW's report vindicated Yasser Arafat, ignoring the documentary evidence of the PLO leader's direct involvement in terror.

6) Roth continues to claim that "most civilians died [in Lebanon] because, after Israel issued warnings for civilians to flee, the IDF falsely assumed that all civilians had in fact fled," adding that "Israel was firing at virtually anyone who moved."

NGO Monitor's Analysis: As noted, the CSS report showed that contrary to HRW's claim to have found "no cases" of human shields, Hezbollah used human shields throughout Lebanon, deliberately endangering civilians. On December 28, 2006, NGO Monitor published a detailed comparison of HRW's claims and the CSS report, revealing that in numerous instances, HRW relied on "eyewitness testimony" that was inconsistent with the available videographic and documentary evidence.

7) Roth chastises others for their "name-calling" adding that it "dishonored the Jewish Tradition".

NGO Monitor's Analysis: In a July 31 letter published in The New York Sun, Roth used the term "an eye for an eye", which he termed to be based on "the morality of some more primitive moment." The comment is a fundamental distortion of Jewish tradition, for which Roth has yet to apologize.

8) Omissions: Roth's defense omits reference to positions and political campaigns based on extremely bad judgment.

NGO Monitor's Analysis: For example, in 2006, Roth condemned the US and Israel for demanding more changes to the framework for the new UN Human Rights Council, which replaced the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights. He asserted that "The proposed Council has many new elements that will be useful in our work for the promotion and protection of human rights".[9] In fact, the Council is no better than the old Commission, and the objections were well founded.


1. On January 23, The Jerusalem Post reported that RHRI (Rabbis for Human Rights Israel) had criticized the highly politicized approach of the North American branch of this organization, particularly the decision to honor the Center for Constitutional Rights, which had sued two Israeli security officials for alleged "war crimes".

2. Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Center for Special Studies, "Hezbollah's use of Lebanese civilians as human shields" Appendix 4, 5 December 2006, at 256

3. Id., Part 1, at 44, Part 2, at 122.

4. Marvin Kalb and Carol Saivetz, "The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media As A Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict", Research Paper Series, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, February 2007

5. Id., Part 2, at 76.

6. Id., Appendix 4, at 256.

7. Staff Editorial, "Whose War Crimes?" The Wall Street Journal, December 11, 2006 [Hassan Nasrallah (Al-Manar Television, May 27, 2006), cited in Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Center for Special Studies, "Hezbollah's use of Lebanese civilians as human shields" December 2006, p. 34

8. On July 30, 2002, the UN issued a report on the Israeli incursion into Jenin, concluding that no massacre had taken place. In HRW's August 2 criticism of the report, Hanny Magelly, HRW's Executive Director of Middle East and North Africa Division at the time, declared that the report "exposes the risk of compiling a report without first-hand information."

9. "U.S.: Accept Draft Resolution on Human Rights Council as It Is", February 24, 2006

Contact the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor at mail@ngo-monitor.org or go to their website:

The original article is archived at
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?viewall=yes&id=1345. It has live links to additional material.

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, March 15, 2007.

Sent to Lou Dobbs on February 24th: Lou Dobbs at LouDobbs.CNN.com See update at end.

Dear Mr. Dobbs, YOU ARE SITTING ON A BIGGER STORY THAN YOU KNOW!: edited & undated 3/15/07

You have done a remarkable job in exposing the assault on our borders, NAFTA, imbalance in trade et al. Sometimes the greatest secrets are hidden in plain sight.

Consider the following: During the Presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush, he made a revealing statement about plans of a cabal of unnamed power brokers of what he called the "NEW WORLD ORDER". This sounded like something out of Mein Kampf or Das Capital but, at that time, the specifics had not yet emerged.

Those specifics have now emerged as a Doctrine of "Rolling Horizons" in the "NEW WORLD ORDER" with most other nations expecting the U.S. to carry the burden.

When taken together, one sees an evolving program to level the playing field globally.

That translates into lowering the higher economic and quality standards of the U.S. by shifting our productive standards to off-shore sources, called "OUT-SOURCING". Somehow, America has been selected by the New World Orderists as having too much, while other nations who have less are to be subsidized out of America's accumulation of assets. Keep in mind that there are 6.5 Billion people on our planet Earth and, while we have been designated the world's leading nation, does that mean we are designated to support the rest?

In theory, the U.S. Industrial/Commercial base will not suffer, but grow even stronger as U.S. industry is fed by a broad, low-wage, offshore work force. While this New World Order doctrine may produce excess profits for multi-national Industry, our local productive work base diminishes in direct proportion to the offshore gain of nations receiving our "outsourced" industries.

Mr. Dobbs, you have been one of the few voices who have incrementally spotlighted certain of these areas but, not as yet identified how they are wired together. Apparently, part of this leveling the global playing field includes using increased Industrial/Commercial profits to pay for our large base of the unemployed or unemployable. Our entitlement obligations have grown exponentially as our pool of unemployment grows.

It's not a matter of what has been transferred offshore but, rather what has NOT been transferred. I will mention a few -- like Silicon Valley -- where both products and technology have gone to China and Taiwan, leaving a huge pool of America's best and brightest driving cabs. When Taiwan had an earthquake, microchips and circuit boards stopped being shipped to Micro-soft and Apple. Production of assembly simply stopped. We in America had no redundant tooling to make our own because we shipped it overseas or South -- across America's borders.

The toy industry once employed hundreds of thousands. But, under NAFTA, it shifted production to Mexico. China also became virtually our sole source for most of our electronic and passive play items. U.S. factories shut down and the machinery transferred off shore, along with the jobs.

Computer based services went to lower hourly costs in India. When you call for service to solve problems with credit card billings or computer glitches, you are calling someone in India who now has access to your most private financial information.

The other day, Mr. Dobbs, you spoke about a bill being passed in Congress, allowing Mexican truck drivers to carry loads anywhere in the U.S. Since their rates of pay are much cheaper than American, union-based rates, American truckers cannot compete in transporting loads, either in or out of America to Mexico. Is Canada next?

Worse yet, Mexican trucks are notoriously poor in maintenance whereas American truckers must have their rigs meet very strict standards. Be assured that, like other manufacturing jobs, Mexican trucking companies can bid for U.S. loads into Mexico at rates that U.S. trucking companies cannot match.

Even military soft and hardware has been contracted to be produced offshore at cheaper rates. Add to that, if there were a conflict, such as a showdown in the Straits of Taiwan with China, vital production would simply stop and spare parts would become scarce. In addition, those U.S. technicians would no longer be employed here in their high level/high paying job and would be reduced to driving cabs or washing dishes. Despite their higher education levels, too many Americans would now become unemployable even as truckers.

You have already gone through the Dubai Port Facility fiasco so, please add this to your list.

I could go on and, no doubt, your research staff could add quite a bit more.

I have not even touched on the protection the Bush Administration has offered to major polluters in coal-generated power plants, strip-mining, with tailings, polluting rivers, streams and aquifers -- all to benefit industry which ships finished product overseas. These industries are, of course, generous contributors to Presidential and Congressional election campaigns for their PC (Politically Correct) votes.

Much of our American timber is cut and destined for Japan and China often at subsidized rates which come back as finished products, all with foreign labor.

The New World Order of which the Bush family and cohorts are charter members, see the world as a level playing field with the U.S. economy, lost jobs and unemployed former workers paying the price. I realize that the accusation of economic conspiracy can fall flat, even when the "prima facie" evidence is exactly that.

When then President George Herbert Walker Bush and Secretary of State James Baker III issued a "waiver" to his entire Cabinet for any business they had been doing with Saddam Hussein before 1991 and the Kuwait invasion, bells should have gone off.

The recent discovery of untapped oil reserves in Iraq was NOT recent. I wrote about them (in USA Today), the Bush family and oil multinationals deals with Saddam immediately after he invaded Kuwait.

In his famous waiver for his Cabinet, Bush ostensibly pre-pardoned men like Scowcroft and Weinberg before they could be indicted. VP Dick Cheney of Haliburton was up to his eyes in their nefarious deals. The matrix of secret double dealing is so huge it is difficult to describe except to say it's been one unified and successful enterprise, with Americans often paying the price.

UPDATE: MARCH 14, 2007

Keep in mind that almost every needy country wishes to transport their unemployed to the United States to generate cash flow back to their families. At this moment in history the U.S. population has reached 300 Million people. There are several Billion needy people world-wide, ready to immigrate into the U.S., anticipating that working Americans will provide the cash to keep them fed, educated, with medical support and schooling.

Sounds good but, our American carpenters, plumbers, electricians, farm workers, restaurant workers, household and childcare help cannot work for the wages of Third World nations which have made America the magnet for all the poor, tired, huddled masses -- of the planet Earth, yearning to breathe free in America.

IF America is to continue paying out assistance to every South American country, every Middle Eastern country, every European country -- we will go broke, supporting illegal immigrants.

What Nigerian, Haitian, Mexican, Russian, Afghani, South American doesn't want to come to America to grab the myth of gold in the streets of America?

Making the U.S. a catch-all for the planet's poor, badly run or dictatorship nations is a bad idea. Catering to Mexico and its transfer of population to America may benefit some politicians, pandering for the votes to stay in power but, the quality-of-life of working Americans will sink as our population moves from 300 Million to 500 Million in a few years. Making America equally poor as other Third World nations will insure that our foreign aid programs will simply disappear.

Please write to Lou Dobbs at Lou.Dobbs@CNN.com and other Media giants to ask them why they are not on this Big Story.

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 winstonmedia@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 15, 2007.


In negotiations, the subject of recognizing Israel never even came up. The purpose of the agreement was to superficially sanitize Hamas so that Western aid would continue to finance Hamas' drive to end Western influence in the Mideast (IMRA, 2/19) and organize the Mideast to gain influence over the West.


France has the highest rate of intermarriage between Muslims and non-Muslims. (Ah, but which way to the offspring turn?) A Muslim middle class is emerging. (Which way does it turn?) Birth rates of second and third generation Muslims approach that of the French general population. (Don't immigrants keep entering, and with high birth rates?)

More promising is the attitude of French Muslims. 42% of French Muslims consider themselves French first, whereas only 7% of British Muslims do. 91% approve of gender equality, and 73% for separation of religion and government. French Muslims did not protest against the Danish cartoons. French anti-terrorist law, however, is severe. Police monitor the mosques. Foreign financing of them has been blocked. France is training "French" imams.

On the other hand, Islamists are agitating and labor laws remain restrictive. (Jewish Political Chronicle, 11/2006, p.33 from Morton Kaminski, Wall St., J, 10/26). Which type of Muslim is immigrating now?


Holland prides itself on its civil liberties. It may have gone too far, and going too far can be its undoing. The Left forged the way with legalistic assaults on police powers. This removed much restraint society had on general ideological conspiracies. Now both leftists and Islamists more often assassinate Dutchmen whose views confront theirs than if the police were allowed more surveillance (MEF News book review, 2/19).


When the Arabs controlled Gaza, nothing much grew there. When Jews returned to it, they figured out how to grow the best crops, in greenhouses. When the farmers were expelled by their own government, Arabs looted and destroyed most of the greenhouses. They did not know how to raise crops in them. Greg Myre of the Times made it seem like Israel's fault, curbing exports for security reasons (Winston Mid East Analysis, 2/21). Who is responsible for security problems there? The Muslims.


The Prime Minister and Defense Minister of Israel, in their squabbling way, are preparing to open a new front. This would be the settler front in Judea-Samaria.

Never a wise idea but a misguided ideological one that harms national security, intended to harm Zionism and appease the unappeasable Muslims, now is a most inopportune for Israel to open that front. Israel has an active war with the P.A. in Gaza, that Israel is not sufficiently pursuing. It expects the Hizbullah front to heat up soon. Its army needs to catch up major war training that was neglected in favor of waging the previous war on the settlers in Gaza and on terrorists.

The 10,000 Gaza settlers still are not resettled decently in Israel. The anticipated uprooting of hundreds of thousands of Jews in Judea-Samaria would inflict psychological trauma, bankruptcy, and national division on a vast scale. It is the kind of disunity most likely to draw the Arabs in for the kill. What morale would be left for resistance in the truncated, anguished Israel?

I think that ideology is not the sole explanation for this folly. Another motive is US demands. (The State Dept. is relentless and heartless. For that, US anti-Americans have no rebuke. This shows how mixed up they are.) A third motive is personal and demagogic. The government has much failure and no accomplishment on its record. Many of its leaders are accused of corruption. They are accused of being weak. Here, against fellow Jews, with no criticism coming from the so-called civilized world, they could, with the powers of the dictatorship they have assembled, act strong. Ariel Sharon showed them how.


The P.A. has the goal of conquering Israel. It demands that Israel allow more P.A. Arabs in to work and get paid. Wages help finance war.

Considering the P.A. goal, why should Israel accommodate its demand?


The West and Japan sent billions of dollars to the P.A.. What resulted? Wars, not jobs. A jihadist government is not interested in promoting business but conflict. Donors still send good money after bad. Either their motives are bad or their oversight poor. Why don't they review the results and end the waste? Same for other foreign aid, including much by the UNO. Our governments are too profligate with our money. They have too ready access to it.

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@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, March 15, 2007.

This letter appeared in the Jewish Journal.

Sunday, March 04, 2007 10:25 AM
RE: StandWithUs Pamphlet

I have not read "Israel 101," but other pamphlets by StandWithUs have been disappointing ("StandWithUs Guide Puts Answers in Students' Hands," Feb. 23).

While they do an excellent job of countering all of the lies the other side spews about current history, they eschew any "Dershowitz arguments," that is arguments that put the whole conflict into perspective. One cannot counter the charge that "Jews control the world" unless one dramatizes the fact that Israel is the victim of absurdly disproportionate criticism.

Furthermore, StandWithUs, like other organizations, refuses to justify Zionism with the compelling arguments that the Zionists used. Until the '70s, they argued that Zionism is justifiable because the land was far more important to the Jews than to the Arabs because this land was a "tiny notch" of the Arab greater homeland. Instead, today many argue that Zionism is justifiable primarily because there always were some Jews in Palestine, a weak argument that would shock our early leaders.

Just because we have to acknowledge the fact that Palestinians have evolved into a people does not mean that that we can avoid explaining that they were not historically one.

Let us hope that this 44-page pamphlet contains the strongest of arguments necessary to defend Israel.

Ronnie Lampert
Los Angeles

My response is below.

TO: Ronnie Lampert
RE: Your letter to the Jewish Journal -- Letters to the Editor -- this week, regarding the StandWithUs Pamphlet.

Like all other Jewish or pro Israel organizations, StandWithUs is working hard to counteract the on going charges against Jews and Israel. How good the job they do time will tell.

The definition of Zionism is: "A movement founded by the Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, who, in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) argued that the best way of avoiding anti-Semitism in Europe was to create an independent Jewish state in Palestine, Biblically known as Zion-Tzyion. Zionism was named after Mount Zion in Jerusalem, a symbol of the Jewish homeland in Palestine since the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BC. The movement culminated in the birth of the State of Israel in 1948." I will go farther and simply define Zionism as the return of the, forever persecuted and discriminated, Jews to their home of over 3000 years.

I really do not know if one has to justify Zionism. Do Americans justify America, which, to begin with, was never theirs? Does any European country justify its borders that changed and moved again and again as one European nation conquered the other?

There are enough evidence -- archeological and ancient or more recent books -- to attach Jews to Israel or the Land of Israel, as we know today and beyond, to Jews. Enough evidence to make the claim that Israel was and is the cradle of Judaism.

The land of Israel is not a matter of importance to whom? It is the home Jews were thrown out of and exiled around 2000 years ago.

So I see no compelling argument when the word Zionists is used. I do however see total horrific misunderstanding of the word that is now used in the same breath or connotation with the word Nazism!

If until the '70s, they -- who ever the 'they' are -- "argued that Zionism is justifiable because the land was far more important to the Jews than to the Arabs because this land was a 'tiny notch' of the Arab greater homeland," then those 'they' were terribly mistaken. The land of Israel was never Arab land. The Arabs appeared in the area to work for Jews or seek life-improving opportunities.

The tragedy is that since the Jews were exiled, the land of Israel went through the hands of a chain of conquerors and the land was abused and desolated but belonged to no one. The Jews leaved scattered in the Diaspora, prayed east, dreamt of Israel and their Beit Hamikdash--their Jerusalem and the Temple but no real initiative, not another Ezra and Nechemyia rose to bring the Jews back home. Until Theodor Herzl Jews were too tired of being beaten, oppressed and humiliated to pack up and come back home.

The truth to be told is that Jews, in small numbers, always lived in Israel; never left their land.

And when the nations of the world legitimized the State of Israel, the book of doubts should have been closed. Israel was reestablished and Jews returned to their home.

The time has come to stand up and educate the public of the truth! The time has come to know that Zionism is simply the return of Jews to their home!

Side note: When defining Palestine one refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan Valley-Jordan River and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were neither Arabs nor even Semites; they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.

Nurit Greenger
Los Angeles

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Fern Sidman, March 15, 2007.

As the three day 2007 AIPAC policy conference held in Washington, DC came to a close yesterday, the nation's most powerful Israeli lobby sent a clear message to Washington, Iran and the world. "Tighten the screws on Iran" was the call of the day, as the Iranian nuclear buildup dominated the agenda of the 5500 member conference.

AIPAC activists from around the country engaged in some 500 meetings with members of Congress of their staffs and pushed for the passage of new legislation tightening US sanctions on Iran in an effort to thwart its nuclear program. The bill, sponsored by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos of California, would expand the types of investment subject to sanctions, eliminate the president's ability to waive sanctions for foreign oil companies and end all imports from Iran, among other measures.

AIPAC members also sought support for two letters -- one circulating among senators to be sent to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the other drafted by representatives for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana -- holding a firm line against the new Palestinian unity government. Both letters call for the continued suspension of aid to the Palestinian Authority so long as the planned Hamas-Fatah government fails to adhere to the three international demands of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence and accepting previous agreements.

Vice President Dick Cheney addressed the AIPAC conference in the cavernous halls of the Washington Convention Center and called on American Jewish support for a continued American military presence in Iraq. He intimated that calls on Washington to take an aggressive lead in challenging the bellicose rhetoric directed at Israel by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the buildup of his nuclear arsenal could only be implemented if the pro-Israel lobby threw their complete support behind the Bush administration's policy of remaining militarily engaged in Iraq.

Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu also addressed the conference and called on American companies to divest from Iranian interests. He also warned that Ahmadinejad was preparing the ground for a second genocide of the Jewish people. According to a report by Arutz Sheva news service of 3/13/07, Netanyahu said, "The key is genocide. Do we want to mobilize the world against Iran? The answer is yes, just as we should have mobilized the world against Hitler in the previous century."

"We don't need global action," Netanyahu explained to his audience. "It is enough that American money be pulled out of companies doing business with Iran for these companies to start folding their operations. The sanctions could be successful in the short term. Iran needs new investment desperately. Drilling of oil wells there is on a downward curve. American disinvestment from companies active in Iran could bring down."

Other Israeli and American official addressed the conference as well and spoke of the Iranian threat, yet the real shining star of AIPAC 2007, was Baptist Evangelical Pastor John Hagee who brought the house down in his fire and brimstone appeal for support for Israel. During the course of his speech, Pastor Hagee received a number of standing ovations as he issued a clear and personal warning to President Ahmadinejad not to threaten America or Israel. He told the audience that 50 million Christian Zionists are stalwart supporters of Israel and would stand behind her.

Pastor Hagee was one of the few speakers that actually mentioned G-d and the Bible in his speech and draw Biblical parallels to those who sought to annihilate the Jewish people, but who in the end were destroyed by the hand of G-d. Speaking of Pharaoh in Egypt he said that he "became fish food in the Red Sea" when he attempted to pursue the Jews who had just been liberated from Egypt after hundreds of years of bondage. Pastor Hagee also made reference to Haman in Persia which he said was modern day Iran and how his nefarious plot to have Mordechai hanged on the gallows turned right back around at him and it was Haman who in the end would be hanged. He warned all those enemies of the Jewish people to think twice before attempting to obliterate G-d's chosen people.

Despite the fact that Pastor Hagee's speech was met with an enthusiastic reception by the AIPAC membership, when the Pastor said that there is "the Torah way and then the wrong way", that remark only drew a mild and at best luke warm response from the audience. It appears that Pastor Hagee was one of the few people at the conference that actually embraced the teachings of the Torah. He then led the audience in a rousing chant of "Israel Lives" and promised the AIPAC members that Israel and the Jewish people would never be alone.

It is clear that Pastor Hagee was the shining star at the AIPAC convention. This is a man who is not afraid to intone the name of G-d, to boldly and courageously call the enemies of the Jewish people evil perpetrators. This is a man who embraces G-d's word and reveres the Torah. The AIPAC membership and the Jewish people can learn a most valuable and important lesson from Pastor Hagee.

[Editor's Note: Pastor Hagee's speech shown on UTube can be found on the Atlas Shrugs website, at
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/03/dr_john_hagee_r.html on the March 11, 2007 page.]

Contact Fern Sidman at AriellaH@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, March 14, 2007.

The EU's attempt to woo Syria does not bode well for peace in the Middle East. Of all the countries, Syria has shown the least interest in mending fences with Israel. It still refers to the latter as the 'Zionist entity' or the at times the 'Zionist enemy'. Syria has always attempted to sabotage the ongoing peace process and has refused to do anything constructive with Israel. Its support for the Palestinian terror groups and the Muslim militia in Lebanon has been anything but constructive. Add to that its complicity in the assassination of the ex-Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri, and a journalist who had been investigating the incident. The Visiting EU representative's statement that Syria is the most important country in the Middle East tantamounts to giving a clean chit to the Ba'athist regime and its irresponsible behaviour. Its only 'importance' lies in it being a conduit for Iranian arms meant for the Hezbollah that aims at the destruction of Israel. The EU by giving its tacit approval of the current regime in Syria seems to be running with the hare and hunting with the hound. Its soft-pedalling approach towards terror tactics is a reminder of the Appeasement, which the western democracies had pursued to whet Hitler's appetite for more concessions. By doing so, the EU is digging its own grave and that of democracy in general. If Syria is to be given a clean chit without taking cognition of its human rights record, then why not treat Turkey at par that has all the potentialities of a vibrant and stable democracy?

This double standard is galling and unacceptable by all international standards. Rather Syria should be told in no uncertain terms to desist from supporting the Hezbollah and initiate freedom and democracy that would guarantee peace in the Middle East. Only then its 'importance' would have some credibility

Contact Kaustav Chakrabarti at kaustav12000@yahoo.co.in

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 14, 2007.

My letter below was in response to this announcement:

March 13, 2007

Dear Colleague,

This letter is to ask for your assistance in recruiting volunteers for the 4th Annual Tunnel of Oppression.

We are seeking student/faculty/staff/community volunteers to help run our check in table and to help monitor the final portion of the Tunnel, which is called the Action Room. Also, we need help on Sunday, April 8th for setting up the event and on Wednesday, April 11th for tear down of the Tunnel of Oppression. All tasks are simple enough that training will be provided the day of volunteering.

In case you have not yet experienced it, the Tunnel of Oppression is a highly visual and interactive experience highlights contemporary and historical oppression with an emphasis on the Bay Area. Each room will present a multimedia, multi-sensory view that will educate, challenge, and raise consciousness on the reality of oppression. We hope that the dialogue inspired by this event will promote an individual and community-wide commitment to challenging oppression in all its forms and intersections.

This year we have chosen the following topics for the various rooms of the Tunnel:

Date Rape/Acquaintance Rape
Occupation Palestine
Reconstructing the Home on our Terms
Gay & Lesbian
Latino Poverty & Immigration
Injustices Veteranos

The event will take place in the campus Student Union Ballroom. Tunnel dates and times are set for:

Monday, April 9th 10am-8pm
Tuesday April 10th 9am-8pm
Wednesday, April 11th 9am-Noon

The opportunity to address oppression on such a large scale offers a rare opportunity for reflection and change. We ask you to promote the Tunnel of Oppression volunteer opportunities to your students. Perhaps students could earn extra credit for this unique participation in the Tunnel of Oppression.

If your class might be able to participate in this way, or if you have students who are interested in helping with this special project please have them email me with their availability during the needed time periods.

You may have already received an email from HyonChu Yi-Baker, Director of the Mosaic Cross-Cultural Center, regarding signing up your students to attend the Tunnel of Oppression. That invitation definitely still applies, this request is simply if you or your students are able to become more involved as volunteers.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via email at lvaldes@housing.sjsu.edu or at 408-795-5665. Thank you for your anticipated support of this important initiative.

Leanne Valdes
Residential Life Coordinator, University Housing Services
Tunnel of Oppression 2006-07 Committee Member

TO: Leanne Valdes, Residential Life Coordinator, University Housing Services
Tunnel of Oppression 2006-07 Committee Member, San Jose State University
lvaldes@housing.sjsu.edu, 408.795.5665

FROM: David Meir-Levi
Menlo Park, CA

RE: Tunnel of Oppression

DATE: 3.14.07

Dear Ms. Valdes,

I congratulate you, and your organization, for setting up such an exemplary event. Certainly enhancing our sensitivity to the oppression suffered by others is very important.

There is, however, one piece of your event that does not make sense to me. In your list of topics...

Date Rape/Acquaintance Rape
Occupation Palestine
Reconstructing the Home on our Terms
Gay & Lesbian
Latino Poverty & Immigration
Injustices Veteranos

...you include "occupation Palestine".

I cannot help but wonder why you chose "Palestine" as a symbol of oppression.

My confusion stems from two sources:


The Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip suffer tragically, but not because of any Israeli oppression.

They suffer because their democratically elected government, led by the self-defined and internationally designated terrorist group Hamas, has been waging a war against Israel for 13 years.

In the context of this war, Israel has taken steps of a restrained and defensive nature in order to stop or reduce the terror attacks. These defensive measures have caused much suffering among the Palestinians. But such suffering is not caused by "oppression". It is caused by the terror war that the Palestinian people's duly elected leaders are waging. Absent the terror war, Israel would have no need for its defensive measures; and the Palestinians' suffering would cease.

Proof of the accuracy of my statement in the above paragraph is immediately evident if one looks even briefly at the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip BEFORE this terror war began.

From 1967 (after the 6-day war) until January 1994 (when Yasir Arafat took over the leadership of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, pursuant to the Oslo Accords), the Arab population's economy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was booming, under Israeli sovereignty.

The Arab population's GDP in these territories averaged from 7% to 13% annual growth, tourism was skyrocketing, foriegn currency was pouring in, seven universities sprung up where none had been before, and the Arab population more than tripled during these 27 years.

Thanks to Israeli medicine, the Arab infant mortality plummetted, and Arab life expectancy increased. Thanks to Israel's "mini-Marshall plan", Israelli money and workers (I was one of them) brought the West Bank and Gaza Strip infrastructure (sewerage, sewage treatment, water supply, water treatment, roads, electricity, radio, telephone service) in to the 20th century.

Hundreds of millions of dollars (and in those days, that was real money) poured in from Israel to develop these territories...in the expectation that their enjoyment of what we Israelies then called the "peace dividend" would move the Arab population to a willingness to make peace with Israel.

And, indeed, it worked for a while. There were no road blocks, no lock downs, no curfews, no "Israelis only" roads, no invasions of IDF soldiers in to villages, and no defensive barrier...because there was no terrorism from within the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Israelis shopped in Ramallah and Arabs shopped in Tel Aviv. And during these years, hundreds of thousands of diaspora Palestinians came back to the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take advantage of the good times and the flourishing economy under Israeli sovereignty.

I used to take my students (I taught Archaeology at the Hebrew University) on field trips through the West Bank, in open trucks, with no guards or weapons. We were greeted warmly by the West Bank Arabs.

All of this came to a grinding halt in 1994 -- when Arafat took over, and almost immediately began his terror war...with its avowed and unabashed goal of destroying Israel and genociding its Jews.

The suffering you see today, which you erroneously attribute to Israeli "oppression", is the product only of that war. Absent the war, the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip could enjoy the kind of life they had under Israeli sovereignty from 1967 to 1994.

And recall too that since Arafat began his terror war in 1994, the same war that Hamas wages today, Israel has made numerous offers for a peaceful and just resolution -- the most recent of which was its unilateral and unconditional withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in a gesture meant to 'jumpstart the peace process'. And Hamas' reply was: "our terrorism brought us this victory. So we will now continue our terrorism on the West Bank."

If the terrorists would lay down their weapons, there would be no more violence.
If Israel would lay down her weapons, there would be no more Israel.


The world is, tragically, full of examples of real oppression...where captive populations are occupied by enemy forces and suffer death, destruction, dismemberment, gang rape, arson, expulsion, and occupier-induced poverty...and in some extreme cases, bona fide genocide.

Why do you not choose from among those real examples, such as:

China's conquest and oppression in Tibet since 1950, with its commensurate cultural and linguistic and religious genocide of the Tibetan national identity

The Sudanese Arab government's genocide of its own black-skinned citizens in the south (c. 2,000,000 dead since 1983 and nearly 4,000,000 homeless and on the verge of starvation) and in the western Sudanese province of Darfur (c. 800,000 dead and 2,000,000 homeless since 2001)

Algeria's 13-year civil war that has rendered 2 million homeless and c. 500,000 dead

Mauritania's semi-legalized slavery which has hundreds of thousands of black africans enslaved to Arab overlords

Egypt's Muslim oppression of the Christian Copts (whose presence in Egypt dates back to the time of Jesus)

Syria's occupation of Lebanon, where Syrian and Palestinian armed groups killed nearly 95,000 Christian Lebanese between 1975 and now

The oppression and massacre of Kurdish Muslims in Iraq under Saddam Hussein

The oppression and massacre of Shi'ite Muslims in Iraq under Saddam Hussein

The oppression of Alawi and Baluchi and Uzbeki and Azeri and Jewish and Assyrian Christian and Chaldean Christian minorities in Iran

The oppression and impoverishment and routine massacres of its Shi'ite Muslim minority by Wahhabi Muslim Arabia under the Saudi royal family

The world-wide traffic in white female sex slaves by predominantly Muslim Arab countries, foremost of which is Saudi Arabia.

The incredible oppression and impoverishment to near starvation of its own people by the North Korean Communist government

The brutal and shameful oppression and discrimination and impoverishment of the indigenous populations of south America by several south American countries

the list can go on and on...but I'm sure you get the idea.

So, in light of these two considerations, I hope you can see why I am confused.

Why did you pick "Palestine"?

David Meir-Levi

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tezza (HaDaR), March 14, 2007.

The Ethiopians did not want the Falashmura, saying that they are Christian missionaries, and even demonstrated against importing them.

However, these missionaries were wanted by the ANTI-JEWISH establishment (from Beilin to Netanyahu, through Peres, Lapid, Olmert, Sharon and Lieberman) and the "formerly-Jewish" Agency that needs to justify its employees in Ethiopia, Ukraine, Lithuania, etc. where there are no more Jews so they import goyim le-mehadrin.

This is called "Finally in the Jewish state, some Falash Mura are turning to Jesus" and was written bty Uriel Heilman for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. It is archived at

JERUSALEM (JTA) -- When an Ethiopian-born Israeli named Dessie finished his compulsory army service three years ago and made plans to travel to Thailand, India and Vietnam, he was hoping to embark on a spiritual quest.

Like many young Israelis, Dessie felt a spiritual void in his life. Though he had studied four years in a religious high school in Jerusalem's East Talpiot neighborhood not long after making aliyah in 1992, he was not very religious.

Dessie hoped he might find in East Asia some of the spirituality he felt was missing from a life in Israel consumed by partying and alcohol.

"I was thirsty for God. I felt empty inside," Dessie said. "That's when I discovered Jesus."

Dessie, 25, now is a devoted member of Shalhevetya, one of a growing number of Protestant churches in Israel that bill themselves as messianic Jewish congregations and cater to Ethiopian Israelis.

Some of the congregants are born Jews, others are Christians who have been part of the 15-year-old Falash Mura migration to Israel, and still others are Ethiopians whose Jewish origins are opaque and Jewish literacy virtually nonexistent.

Recent Ethiopian olim are easy prey for Christian missionaries. They come to Israel with little knowledge of Judaism; some have Christian roots. Most practiced some form of Christianity in Ethiopia before filing their aliyah petitions and moving to the Ethiopian cities of Gondar and Addis Ababa.

Some veteran Ethiopian Israeli leaders are warning that the ongoing Ethiopian aliyah is making matters worse, bringing to Israel many Christians who either are married to Ethiopians of Jewish origin or fraudulently claim to be related to Jews.

"Today the aliyah of the Falash Mura has turned into a business," said Rabbi Yitzhak Zagay, an Ethiopian Israeli rabbi in Rehovot and director of the National Committee of Ethiopian Jews, formed recently to combat missionary activity.

The term Falash Mura is used to refer to Ethiopians of Jewish origin who converted to Christianity several generations ago to escape social and economic pressures.

Initially rebuffed as apostates when Israel decided some 30 years ago to facilitate the aliyah of Ethiopians who had kept their Jewish identity, the Falash Mura began to come to Israel legally after the government changed its policy in the early 1990s.

"If they became Christians 150 or 200 years ago, I am in favor of their aliyah," Zagay said of the Falash Mura, echoing the Israeli Chief Rabbinate's position that the Falash Mura are Christians of Jewish origin who are welcome back to the original faith of their forefathers.

"But not all those coming are Jews. There are those who buy a Jewish identity, and those who sell a Jewish identity," Zagay said. "The rich children of Addis Ababa prey on the Falash Mura and pay them to marry them, get to Israel, then divorce them and try to bring the rest of their families.

"The problem is that after they come here, not only are they not Jews, they are actively missionizing. They are Adventists, Pentecostals and other Protestant groups," he said.

Zagay hosted a conference in Rehovot in February to address the problem.

Other community leaders, like the Jewish Agency's former director of Ethiopian immigrant absorption, Shlomo Molla, now head of the Department of Zionist Institutes at the World Zionist Organization, say the proselytizers are mostly outsiders, not Ethiopians.

"This phenomenon exists in various sectors of the Israeli population," Molla said. "I don't think it's connected to the Falash Mura. Unfortunately, missionaries succeed in penetrating the Ethiopian community. They operate on the periphery. They are not loved. They are not supported."

The Jerusalem church Dessie attends is run by Finnish Protestants, he said. It hosts a variety of community services; Sunday night is reserved for Ethiopians.

Molla says claims that the Falash Mura are acting as missionaries rather than as the proselytizers' prey are being spread to "cast aspersions on the Falash Mura."

His argument is bolstered by the fact that the vast majority of Ethiopian Christians, including any Christians among the Falash Mura olim, are Ethiopian Orthodox rather than from the Protestant sects involved in missionary activity in Israel.

Most forms of Christian proselytizing are illegal in Israel.

Rav Simcha HaKohen Kook, Rehovot's chief rabbi, says the problem lies with an Israeli educational system that is sorely lacking when it comes to Judaic studies.

"Despite the fact that opposition to Christianity is absolute in the Ethiopian community, there is great poverty, indigence and disrespect for elders in the community, and so the Ethiopians are easy prey for the missionaries," Kook said.

The missionaries "offer help and give money, and the Ethiopians don't know Judaism, so it's easier to get them," Kook said. "This is a widespread problem with immigrants from many countries. If this does not become a national concern, to combat the missionary activity on a national level among Ethiopians, among Russians and among others, then we risk emptying the State of Israel of all its Jewish content."

But Zagay and some other religious leaders here attribute the problem to the Falash Mura themselves.

Zagay says those who came in the early 1990s were legitimate Falash Mura -- members of Christian families known to have Jewish roots -- but most coming today are not.

This has led to calls within Israel's Ethiopian community to put the brakes on Falash Mura aliyah. Because it's such a sensitive issue, however, few Ethiopian Israeli leaders are willing to speak about it publicly.

"This aliyah is causing irreversible damage to the State of Israel," one Ethiopian Israeli leader in Jerusalem told JTA. "These people aren't Jewish. It is tearing apart the Ethiopian and Israeli community.

"I want to put an end to this lie," the leader said. "White Israelis are afraid of the charge of racism, so they continue bringing them. But if Israel brings people for humanitarian reasons, I prefer they bring the refugees from Darfur."

Even Israeli officials involved in the aliyah acknowledge that some of the Ethiopians arriving in Israel are not Jews, but they say the number is small.

As it is virtually impossible for the Falash Mura to prove their Jewish provenance, they enter Israel under the Law of Entry, a humanitarian law designed to enable relatives of Israelis to immigrate, rather than the Law of Return, which is meant for Jews.

Once here, the Jewish Agency for Israel oversees their required conversions and teaches the Falash Mura Hebrew and Judaism.

The controversy seemed far away on a recent Sunday evening as a few dozen Ethiopian Israelis quietly made their way to the Shalhevetya church near a fervently Orthodox neighborhood of Jerusalem.

Inside, congregants swayed to organ music, eyes closed, arms outstretched, Hebrew-language New Testaments on their chairs, singing songs to Jesus.

Contact Sergio Tezza (Hadar) at hadar-Israel@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tezza (HaDaR), March 14, 2007.

A Mr. Amar Azk, a 37-year old Palestinian, was an excellent customer of one of the main metal tube manufacturing plants in Israel.

He bought frequently, and paid promptly. The metal tubes that Mr. Azk imported were intended, according to Mr. Azk's declaration, for the construction of drainage systems in Gaza.

Really, however, Mr. Azk was buying these metal tubes in order to "re-export" them to Israel in the form of Qassam rockets, fired daily (to the tune of 1,700 in 2006 alone) from Gaza Strip cities in to Israeli cities near the Gaza border.

Finally, Mr. Azk was arrested, and Israel has prohibited the sale of hollow metal tubes of specific internal diameters to Gaza.

Naturally, the headlines of certain European newspapers presented this news as follows:
Israel does not want Palestinians to have modern drainage systems in Gaza.

Contact Sergio Tezza (Hadar) at hadar-Israel@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 14, 2007.

Hard left Israeli politician Zahava Gal'on has been carrying on a pogrom against news outlet Arutz Sheva, succeeding in getting their radio station closed down. Now she has turned her repressive intentions toward the Arutz Sheva web site, demanding a criminal investigation targeting Flash artist and commentator Gil Ronen: Next Target For Left-Wing: Arutz-7 Internet. (Hat tip: Tamar.)

Gal'on has asked Attorney-General Elyakim Rubenstein to open a criminal investigation into the operators of Arutz-7's internet site on suspicion of "incitement to murder and racism."

Gal'on honed in on a sentence in an op-ed on Arutz-7's Hebrew site, written by Gil Ronen, a resident of pre-1967 Israel, near Hadera. Gal'on says that his article is a call to "murder hundreds of thousands of Palestinians." Though Arutz-7 does not endorse the opinions it publishes in its op-ed section, it should be noted that the sentence in question was taken out of context, and does not incite to murder. In fact, Ronen writes in the article, "no one will have to take the law into his own hands."

To read his entire essay to see how blatantly Gal'on is distorting Ronen's words, which are harsh, but certainly not "a call to murder and racism," click here.

The essay below was written by Gil Ronen and it appeared in

The problem with the current balance of power in the Middle East is that it is too balanced. you all know how hard it is to balance a scale, or a see-saw, so one side doesn't hit the ground and the other one doesn't go up in the air. It's precarious: the slightest movement creates instability.

The same holds true for the Middle East. The sides are too balanced, too similar in strength, for peace and stability to be achieved. On one side -- Israel. Technologically super-bright. A nation of geek geniuses. A country that has brought the world wonderful advances in agriculture and science, despite its small size. The place that invented the kibbutz and now, its heir, the "yishuv kehilati." Home to wonderful communities where religious Jews work and pray and live a moral, healthy life. A leader in medicine and emergency rescue. Abode of the Merkava and the best air force pilots in the world. But tiny. Tiny.

On the other -- the Arab-Muslim Middle East. A lugubrious mammoth with relatively low abilities in the field of science and invention, other than the buzzing prayer rug of course. An ocean of poverty, spicy souks, misogyny and terrible driving. But also -- a humungous population with great oil wealth and a fierce sense of pride, mortally injured by the Yid's presence and our ability to knock them to the ground in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982. Tens of millions of men in mustaches want us dead, and they are growing crazier and more religious by the minute.

This is a balance: a small, talented, high-tech, reasonable Jew versus 20 big low-tech, religiously zealous Arabs. And that is why the Middle East is so unstable.

Can a less balanced Middle East emerge? Can there be a decisive victory over the Arab Muslim Middle East?

Take a look at the map attached, folks. Imagine a blitz campaign in which Israel takes all the territory marked in orange, with the help of allies like India, and perhaps some sub-Saharan African countries which we train and advise. Is it possible? I guess not. But was the Six Day War possible? The Entebbe raid? 1948? Imagine us with those borders, with oil wealth and Jewish genius. And imagine the Arab Muslims back in Arabia, with little territory to the north of Mecca and Medina. That would be stable! Maybe not possible, but worth dreaming about.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, March 14, 2007.

What happened to the promised investigation of the failed Israeli response to the launching of 4,000 Katyusha Rockets by Hezb'Allah into Northern Israel from Lebanon?

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government did everything they could to delay and side-track this investigation. Recently, the Lindenstrauss Comptroller's Report was to release its first findings but, the Olmert government, in collusion with the Leftist Supreme Court, ordered it delayed for months.

Other ongoing investigations against Olmert personally are also being dragged out so Olmert can retain his seat as Prime Minister and more. The "More" is what is in question.

Clearly, the Israeli Supreme Court is acting like a fully-fledged Leftist political Party in collaboration with Olmert and his Kadima Party to force through several personal agendas. One is to make a pronouncement that it is official government policy to De-Judaize and empty Judea and Samaria (the so-called "west bank") of all Jews as was done in 2005 from Gush Katif/ Gaza.

This is wired to on-going pressure from Bush and Rice to accept the phony Saudi Plan of 2002 for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 Armistice lines and allow the so-called 4 to 5 million descendants of the 460,000 Arab Muslims who fled the 1948 War of Independence to move like an uncontrolled mob into the Jewish State of Israel. When all of this is done, the Arab Muslims of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Al Qaeda, Hezb'Allah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood...and the non-Arab Muslims of Iran, Indonesia, etc., will all swear on a stack of Korans to cease Terrorism and no longer follow Koranic Law to drive the Jews from their Land. Isn't this where Bush, Rice and the Saudis say "Trust Me, We have your best interests at heart!"?

Their intended trick is to give it a stamp of Israeli government approval under Olmert so the Arab Muslim Palestinians, whether they be the PLO, Hamas, Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigade, Tanzim, Fatah... or whatever, can move in with the backing of Bush, Rice, Baker, the U.N., the E.U., and Russia, that is, the Quartet. This has been Olmert's and Kadima's declared Party Plank which went underground after the expulsion from Gush Katif/Gaza failed and Olmert needed cover for his corrupt practices now under legal scrutiny.

Moreover, it is what Bush, Rice want for their failed Oslo Road Map, knowing that neither Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), the Palestinian Authority President, nor Ismail Haniya, current Head of Hamas can make or will deliver peace.


Publically revealing the Quartet's plan to "divest" Israel of the Golan Heights should put a stop to the "almost" secret negotiations with Syria for Israel to surrender the Heights which sits atop and controls Israel's most important water source. To abandon the Golan Heights would also relinquish Israel's high-tech listening and observation posts on Mt. Hermon and Mt. Dov which the Sheba'a Farms protects.

The U.S. believes it can cut a "lease" deal with Bashar Assad, President of Syria, allowing a large American ground and air force base to be built as a "gift" for forcing Israel to cede her vital observation stations on the Golan Heights.

"EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana said Wednesday March 13th that Europe supported Syria's plans to get back the Golan Heights." Well, now we know why the Secret Syrian Gambit has been hidden. The Europeans are finally saying publically that they join the Bush administration in demanding that Israel turn over the strategically important Golan Heights to the regime of terror-supporter Assad of Syria. Following a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad, Solana said at a press conference that "we are interested in working for your country to return to itself the territories that were captured [in the 1967 war]." (2) No doubt, Solana upped the EU's ante when he visited Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on March 12th.


You can see why the Leftist Supreme Court has colluded with Olmert to delay releasing the conclusions of Micha Lindenstrauss's investigation to the people. If the report of Olmert's malfeasance and misfeasance in office is released, will he be kicked out of office and thus defeat the Saudi/Bush Plan?

Another investigative committee called the Winograd Commission which is also due to deliver its report in mid-April on Olmert and Peretz about why the military was not ready for Hezb'Allah's attack with Iranian Katyusha Rockets, sent through Syria to Hezb'Allah. This investigation has also dragging on for almost six months, particularly since many of its members were appointed by Olmert.

As Moshe Arens said in Ha'aretz March 12th, "What is the world is taking them so long? Is it not clear? Is the writing not on the wall? Don't they know what just about everybody in Israel knows, that the war was grossly mishandled by the political and military leadership? That the political leadership -- Olmert and Peretz, reminiscent of Laurel and Hardy -- fell captive to the enticing assumption that the war could be won by air power alone, and they stubbornly stuck to this mindless concept as week after week hundreds of rockets kept falling on the Galilee." (1)

Olmert is a sly, tricky lawyer who has just taken another tack. The Israeli military did have a long standing set of plans to deal with Hezb'Allah and Syria should they attack. Olmert and Peretz fumbled and stumbled, generating losses of lives through their incompetence. Now, lo and behold, Olmert has the Chutzpah to claim that those plans of the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) were "somehow" his. He now takes credit for plans he didn't formulate, nor understand and did not allow them to be used in substance or in time to save his young soldiers. That is the height of arrogance.


An internal Shabak (GSS -- General Secret Service) document says Israel's Arabs are a long-range strategic danger to Israel's character and very existence. The GSS believes them to be a greater threat than Iran and its nuclear threat. This is NOT because of an increasing population bomb (the demographic argument has been demolished by the reports of Yoram Ettinger), but because there is increasing solidarity and identification of Israeli-Arabs with Terrorists elements. In 2006, 21 Israeli-Arab Terror Cells were uncovered. They have been spies, smugglers of weapons, rapists who admitted using rape as anti-Israel Terrorism. (3)

But, there is more. The Arab Muslim Palestinians in Gaza, under the advice and guidance of Hezb'Allah, have carved deep bunkers and interconnecting tunnels in Gaza (just as was done in Lebanon by Yassir Arafat under the watch of Ariel Sharon, Olmert and Mofaz for 6 years). These bunkers have been loaded with missiles, explosives and weapons -- all coming in through the Sinai Desert, courtesy of Egypt, into Gaza -- the latest radical Islamic base for Global Terrorism. Olmert has done virtually nothing in defense as Kassam Rockets are being launched almost daily into Sderot and Ashkelon, as well as other towns and villages in southern Israel.

If Olmert, Rice and the Supreme Court have their way, the entire length and (narrow) breadth of Judea and Samaria will be lined with Katyusha Rockets, within easy reach of Israel's coastal area, home to 70% of Israel's civilian population and Ben Gurion's International Airport. When we warned the government of Israel of the 12,000 to 20,000 missiles lined up in Lebanon, nothing was done pre-emptively to defend the Jewish State. Israeli Intelligence not only knew of the these missiles but, were deeply concerned many had poison gas or chemical warheads. The Israeli government had no interest in the facts and refused even minimal response. If ever a Government warranted a Nuremberg Tribunal, it is the Sharon-Olmert-Mofaz government which has now morphed into Olmert's Kadima Government -- even worse.

What is happening now is a travesty as Olmert uses every trick to stay in power assisted by a corrupt Supreme Court and a dismal failure of the Knesset to simply vote a "No Confidence" motion and close down a Government bent on volunteering the Jewish State into national suicide.

If ever a Nuremberg Tribunal Peoples' Court was warranted, replete with a judgement of hanging the perpetrators, now is that time.

Everyone seems to have forgotten that the Saudi Plan to divide Jerusalem includes the abandonment of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem -- with a tunnel for Jews and tourists to go to the Western Wall. The Saudi Plan also plans re-appropriating the Mount of Olives ancient Jewish cemetery which was ravaged and desecrated by King Hussein of Jordan. The Saudis also demand French Hill, Ramot Eshkol, Gilo areas plus all the other Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem that were occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967.

Remember! The Saudi Plan was probably originally designed by the U.S. State Department and delivered to the Saudis by Thomas Friedman and was always intended as the threshold death knell for Israel.


1. The Bush-Rice regime needs Olmert, Livni and Peres to stay in control of Israeli government policy so they may affix an official U.S. government approval on the Saudi Plan. IF the Israeli subversive wing stays in power, then the U.S. can say: "We support the real government policy in Jerusalem" -- even if a huge majority of Israelis do NOT support this Olmert government's national suicide.

2. This includes, but is not limited to, the evacuation of Judea and Samaria (the so-called "west bank"), dividing Jerusalem -- making the eastern half the seat of government for Fatah, Hamas and all the other Terrorist factions. Add to that dire loss of Israel's sovereignty and security, the surrender of the Golan Heights and the Jordan Valley.

3. The Leftist Supreme Court has agreed to keep Olmert in power until all the above have been de-Judaized and abandoned to the Arab Muslim Palestinians as was done in Gush Katif/Gaza.

4. The Knesset, with encouragement from the Left, refuses to bring down the government, both to keep their own seats and for those of the Left to insure that Olmert will complete the failed terms of the earlier Oslo Accords and the follow-on failed Appeasement Accords.

5. Many have noticed that former PM Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu has been almost silent -- with the exception of weak attacks on Olmert and the Kadima government. It seems that he wishes the Bush -- Rice -- Olmert plan of divestment (and disintegration) to be completed before he comes to power. Moreover, he has made statements to the effect that, had he been in power, he too would have negotiated away the same territory that Olmert, Bush and the Saudis call a Peace Plan Road Map...just as he gave way to the Arab Muslims 80% of the Jewish Holy City of Hebron in the Wye Agreement. This is a question that should be put squarely to Netanyahu and NOT allow him to avoid with typical political double-talk. Recall that it was Ariel Sharon who, in his election, ran again Avram Mitznah by pledging to oppose Mitznah's platform of abandoning Judea, Samaria, all of Jerusalem that Jordan occupied from 1948 to 1967, the Golan Heights and the Jordan Valley. After winning the election Sharon, along with Olmert and Peres, et al adopted the Mitznah Oslo platform and organized the brutal Gush Katif/Gaza eviction/expulsion.

6. Bush, having virtually lost the Iraq conflict needs the voluntary sacrifice of most of Israel's strategic Land to the Arab Muslim Palestinians and the Arab and Muslim nations in order to the leave an historic legacy of fictional "Peace in Our Time -- in the Middle East". Sharon was to be the General who initiated the "Judenrein" swap. When he was struck down by crippling strokes, his even weaker replacement, Ehud Olmert, was set up to finish the job. The U.S. State Department, through the Saudis, have floated the "Final Solution of Israel" withdrawing to the pre-1967 Armistice lines which Abba Eban correctly dubbed "The Auschwitz Borders".

This then concludes a brief summation of how the U.S., E.U., U.N. and Russia -- The Quartet -- have manipulated the National Suicide of the world's only Jewish State.


1. "Waiting for Winograd" by Moshe Arens Ha'aretz March 12, 2007

2. "Solana: EU Backs Returning Golan Heights to Syria" by jpost.com staff The Jerusalem Post March 14, 2007

3. "GSS: Israeli Arabs are Existential Danger to Israel" by Hillel Fendel Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com March 13, 2007

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 winstonmedia@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green, March 14, 2007.
This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared yesterday in The Jerusalem Post.

Last November 26, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ordered the IDF to withdraw its forces from Gaza. Sounding oddly triumphant, Olmert announced that he had reached a cease-fire with the Palestinians. The strangeness of his statement became apparent when just hours later Sderot absorbed yet another bombardment of rockets from Gaza.

And as the IDF grudgingly withdrew its forces mid-mission, the Palestinians established the rules that they and Olmert have followed ever since. They attack Israel and prepare for war, and Israel helps them by giving them money, negotiating with them and taking no steps to defend itself or its citizens.

The strange agreement was announced three days before US President George W. Bush snubbed Olmert when he demurred from either visiting Israel or visiting with Olmert during his trip to Amman, Jordan. In the four months since Olmert forced the IDF to stand down, the IDF, the Shin Bet, and even the media have warned both Olmert and the public that Syrian, Iranian and Lebanese-Hizbullah trainers, engineers, commanders and advanced anti-air and anti-tank missiles have been brought into Gaza.

The foreign terror masters and their Palestinian counterparts have used the respite that Olmert provided them to build what Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin has referred to as "warrens" of tunnels and fortifications along Gaza's borders with Egypt and with Israel. Like Hizbullah in Lebanon, operating from these fortifications, the Palestinians will be able to attack IDF ground forces and aircraft when they are finally permitted to defend southern Israel from attack.

So thanks to Olmert's unilateral cease-fire, the Palestinians have upgraded their capabilities. Whereas before Israel withdrew its forces and civilians from Gaza in August and September 2005, the Palestinians operated as low-level terrorist cells, today they field bona fide terror armies that are capable of conducting coordinated, multi-layered operations.

YET THE Palestinians' avid preparations for war are apparently irrelevant to all concerned. In the past week alone, we have seen the US, Israel and the Arab world in the throes of a diplomatic frenzy that would make it seem as though the coming war was nothing but a joke.

Last Wednesday, Jordan's King Abdullah addressed a joint session of the US Congress. Abdullah came to the US at an interesting moment in the history of his own kingdom. The same day that Abdullah told US lawmakers that Israel is the source of all the misfortunes in the world, or as he put it, "The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine," his state prosecutor announced the arrest of three al-Qaida terrorists. The men were arrested for plotting to assassinate Bush during his visit to Amman on November 29 and for plotting to bomb the US embassy in Amman.

What is interesting about the announcement, coming as it did the day that Abdullah spoke to the Congress and ate a private dinner with the president, is that it shows the mendacity of Abdullah's contention.

Israel is not responsible for the fact that Jordan has a huge problem with al-Qaida. Moreover, with a population that is more than 70 percent Palestinian, the monarch of the Hashemite kingdom would do well to look in the mirror before declaring that the lack of Palestinian statehood has anything to do with Israel.

ACCORDING to Israel's Channel 2, Abdullah built on his "Blame the Jews" theme to great effect during his private dinner with the president. Bush was reportedly convinced by his Jordanian guest that the world will be a better, safer place if the US abandons its demand that the PA destroy the terror cells and armies operating in its territory before it commences pressure on Israel to surrender Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to Hamas-Fatah.

Abdullah's success has had immediate significance on the ground. Just four days after the monarch's visit to Washington, Olmert announced that he is going to ignore the situation on the ground in the PA and conduct negotiations on Israeli withdrawals from Judea and Samaria with Abbas. At Sunday's cabinet meeting Olmert repeated his praise for the so-called "Saudi plan," or, alternatively, the "Arab peace initiative."

That initiative calls for Israeli surrender of Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights and Jerusalem; Israeli acceptance of blame for the Arab world's refusal to accept the right of the Jewish people to national sovereignty; and Israeli acceptance of millions of foreign-born, hostile Arabs within its truncated borders. After Israel makes these suicidal concessions the Arab peace initiative states that the Arab world will be willing to recognize a defunct and defenseless Arab-majority State of Israel.

OLMERT AND Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni have repeatedly stated that at its meeting later in the month in Riyadh the Arab League will moderate the plan. But Jordan's Foreign Minister Abdullah Khatib said Sunday that there would be no changes of any kind made in the plan.

Hours after Olmert praised the Arab plan for Israel's destruction, he met with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Olmert's office tried to put a positive spin on the meeting by loudly repeating Abbas's empty pledge to work to bring about the release of IDF Cpl. Gilad Schalit, who has been held hostage by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza since June.

But the fact of the matter is that the content of the Olmert-Abbas meeting represented nothing less than an Israeli diplomatic capitulation to Hamas. This capitulation is no less dangerous to Israel's national security than Olmert's acquiescence to Hamas's military transformation of Gaza into a mini-Lebanon, replete with Iranian and Syrian military advisers.

Under orders from Bush, Olmert agreed Sunday to abandon Israel's demand that the PA fight terror and expunge all terror elements from its midst as a necessary precondition for further Israeli concessions. For their part, the Palestinians responded to Olmert's query regarding how they had used the $100 million that Israel gave them by demanding more money.

And while Olmert was happy to lie to the public and claim that Abbas had agreed to end the rocket attacks on the Western Negev, he knows full well that he won't. Indeed, the only thing that was announced about the meeting that was true is that Olmert has agreed to negotiate with the Palestinians and the Arabs on the basis of the Arab initiative, which is based on the proposition that Israel essentially has no right to exist.

SPEAKING on Israel Radio on Monday morning, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that Israel and the US are working in pure harmony in formulating their policies regarding the Palestinians, as well as Syria. And this is no doubt true. Both Israel and the US are pretending that it is possible to make a distinction between Abbas and Hamas, even though in the aftermath of last month's agreement between Fatah and Hamas in Mecca Abbas now acts at the pleasure of Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.

Perhaps the only bright spot for Israeli diplomacy since the onset of the Palestinian jihad in 2000 has been the US and European willingness to make a distinction between the Fatah terror group and the Hamas terror group.

It is true that Fatah, which receives at least 40 percent of its finances from Iran and has killed more Israelis over the past seven years than Hamas, is unworthy of the international legitimacy it has enjoyed. But in refusing to directly fund and support Hamas, the US, Israel and Europe were at least agreed that some Palestinian terror groups were beyond the pale.

This Israeli diplomatic asset was destroyed by a combination of Arab perfidy and Israeli incompetence in the aftermath of last month's Mecca agreement. In Mecca, Abbas agreed to a Hamas takeover of the PA. He agreed to become a Hamas figurehead whose main task is to restore Western funding of the Hamas-led PA.

Rather than point this out and so wrest away Fatah's international legitimacy, Israel has allowed Fatah to do Hamas's bidding and act as a conduit toward the international legitimization of the jihadist movement.

PERHAPS what is most interesting about the diplomatic maneuvering taking place today is that all four main actors carrying it out are advancing aims inimical to their national or organizational interests. Israel and the US's security interests, like those of Jordan, are harmed rather than advanced by the empowerment of Hamas. As for Abbas, Fatah's fiduciary interests are harmed by the transfer of power to Hamas.

So why are these men behaving as they are?

The answer to that apparently is to be found in a characteristic shared by Bush, Olmert, Abdullah and Abbas. All of them lead without the support of their people. All of the men, in engaging in near-manic diplomatic wrangling, are advancing the aims of neither peace nor security. They act as they do not because they believe in what they are doing -- indeed, none of them could possibly believe in what he is doing. Rather, they are doing this because they want us to ignore the fact that in Bush's and Olmert's cases they are lame ducks, and in Abdullah's and Abbas's cases, they are sitting ducks.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 14, 2007.

This was written by Steven Emerson and it appeared today on Front Page Magazine
http://mavericknewsnetwork.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/03/ threatened_by_j.html#comment-63235292

On January 26, 2007, I appeared on Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes program to discuss a January 8, 2007 meeting between the Attorney General of the United States and various Muslim and Arab groups, some of which have a long history of supporting terrorist groups and extremist ideologies. In response to a question from Alan Colmes about the importance of "good relations" between Attorney General Gonzales and the Muslim community, I stated, "[b]ut when you say the 'Muslim community' -- [the Attorney General] is anointing them representatives of the Muslim community, when in fact there are many others who support the war on terrorism, who don't tell their members not to cooperate with the FBI, who don't support Hamas and Hezbollah, unlike members of this group. So, in fact, I think it's wrong to confer legitimacy on those very organizations that inhibit cooperation with the FBI, that support Hamas or justify Hezbollah, and who are radical in terms of portraying the war on terrorism as a war against Islam." On February 16, 2007, MPAC's lawyer sent me a letter demanding an apology for my allegedly "[f]alse statements about the Muslim Public Affairs Council on Hannity and Colmes." The letter demands that I "immediately issue a public apology and ... cease and desist from making false statements about MPAC," and that "MPAC is willing to pursue all available legal remedies" should I not comply with MPAC's demands.

And what are the allegedly "false statements" MPAC is claiming I made? That "MPAC told its 'members not to cooperate with the FBI,'" and that MPAC "are the ones radicalizing their community." Now let's analyze those charges by looking at MPAC's own words.

First, that MPAC has instructed American Muslims not to cooperate with the FBI:

MPAC and its lawyers claim this to be untrue. But at a July 1, 2005 ISNA conference in Dallas, MPAC Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati did just that. Al-Marayati, speaking of the FBI's terrorism investigation in Lodi and the use of Muslim informants in that case, California, told the assembled crowd of Muslim-Americans, "[c]ounter-terrorism and counter-violence should be defined by us. We should define how an effective counter-terrorism policy should be pursued in this country. So, number one, we reject any effort, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another." Right there, Al-Marayati is instructing Muslim Americans to not even attempt to observe any extremism or terrorist activity in their community, and even if they should observe something troubling, to not inform law enforcement authorities, that the duty owed to the Muslim community by the government is greater than to society at large.

And Al-Marayati continued, "Law enforcement is going to come to your mosque. It already has as far as I can tell. Everywhere I go, either somebody tells me that officials have met with them publicly or they tell me that they know who those folks are that are representing law enforcement. So we know they have communicated one way or the other with the Muslim community. The question is how do you deal with it in a healthy, open, transparent manner. That is why we are saying have them come in community forums, in open-dialogues, so they come through the front door and you prevent them having to come from the back door." Here, Al-Marayati is instructing Muslim Americans not to cooperate with the FBI's preferred methods of investigation, and that, as he stated earlier, it is the Muslim community, and its so-called leaders, that should define the terms of the FBI's investigation. That approach can hardly be described as full-fledged cooperation with law enforcement. Far from it, in fact. Al-Marayati used the Lodi case as an excuse to tell Muslim Americans not to deal with the FBI directly. Demanding that the American Muslim community only work with FBI agents and other law enforcement in public forums clearly detracts from the ability of investigators to do their job, which is to protect American citizens from the threat of radical Islamist terrorists. MPAC, and groups like it, are also clearly seeking to intrude into and ultimately to dominate the relationship between the law enforcement and the Muslim community, ensuring that the degree of allowable cooperation is regulated by these self-appointed leaders.

And why did Mr. Al-Marayati not urge his listeners in Dallas that they should extend full cooperation to the FBI and law enforcement community at every instance, rather than to demand a specific approach which is debilitating from an investigatory standpoint? Or that law abiding American Muslims need some sort of self-appointed intermediary when working with the FBI? And how can people feel comfortable providing information to law enforcement if they can only do so in an open forum? I will leave that to the reader to decide. But one thing is clear: MPAC is on the record telling American Muslims not to directly cooperate with the FBI, while at the same time advocating an impractical or impossible way for those who actually have information to relay it to law enforcement.

Now let's analyze the other alleged "false statement": that MPAC serves to radicalize the American Muslim community: This claim is even easier to demonstrate, as MPAC officials give speeches and quotes to the media that can only serve to alienate and radicalize Muslims who hear them. The constant refrain: a conspiracy theory that the War on Terror is a contrivance of the U.S. government and is really a "War against Islam." Such a conspiracy dismissed legitimate efforts by law enforcement to fight terrorism and terrorist financing perpetrated on U.S. soil. By virtue of the sheer number of times MPAC officials (and, for that matter, officials of other U.S.-based Islamist groups,) have made that claim, it is impossible to include them all here. But here are several instances that easily serve to make the point:

Aslam Abdullah, MPAC Vice Chairman and Editor of the MPAC-linked magazine, the Minaret, in a 2002 online forum entitled, "The Truth behind America's War on Terrorism," wrote, "[t]here are three specific lobbies that are turning the ongoing war on terrorism against Islam. The Christian Evangelicals who want to see Muslims converted, the political Zionists who want to see Muslim [sic] politically obliterated, and the Hindu Extremists who want to see Muslim [sic] humiliated...Mr. Bush and his administration have not been able to challenge these lobbies. Many members of these lobbies are in the administration and in FBI, law enforcement and even Congress." [1] (emphasis added)

MPAC "hate crime prevention coordinator" in May 2004, speaking to the Inter Press Service article reported, "The war on terror is a war, really, on a community that is being connected to the (9/11) hijackers." [2]

In a January 2002 article in the Minaret, stated that, "[s]ince the Sept. 11 attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the U.S. government has pursued a policy where it has targeted Islamic, Arab and Palestinian organizations and individuals, in a manner that often lacks legal legitimacy."[3]

And al-Marayati, in the Los Angeles Times in March 2003, blasted "the FBI's policy of targeting people because of their race and religion." He added, "That's what they've been doing since the attacks, and we don't know of any case that has resulted in the arrest, indictment or prosecution of a terrorist."[4]

A recent study conducted by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has concluded that the repeated use of "War on Islam" mantra is directly related to the radicalization of the "homegrown" jihadists. [5]

Al-Marayati also infamously told an L.A. radio station after 9/11, "[i]f we're going to look at suspects we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list," engaging in the very kind of conspiracy theories heard in the most radical quarters around the globe. Additionally, MPAC officials have defended Hezbollah, blasted the U.S. government for actions taken to stop the funding of Hamas by U.S. front organizations, and repeatedly defended convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami al-Arian, downplaying his jihadist exhortations and claiming that his prosecution was merely "political."

As a well-known analyst of militant Islamist groups in the United States, I have been a target of a vicious smear campaign by organizations which are afraid of having the bright light of day shone on their words and deeds. For example, in December 2004, MPAC, published a "policy" paper titled "Counterproductive Counterterrorism," in which more than 20 of the 48 pages were at their core a personal hit piece against me. And after failing to de-legitimize me through character assassination, MPAC is now threatening to silence me using the court system.

Legal action has become a mainstay of radical Islamist organizations seeking to intimidate and silence their critics. In September 2005, journalist Robert King, writing in the Indianapolis Star, outlined the strategy [6]:

Sayyid Syeed, the secretary general of ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), a group generally less vocal than CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), earlier in the weekend said his organization is considering filing defamation lawsuits against some of its sharpest critics.

King goes on to write that one of the potential targets frequently cited by America's Muslim leaders is yours truly. And why is that? Because I have spent more than a decade exposing radical Islamists in the United States, many of whom are functioning in leadership capacities in these very groups in question. CAIR by the way, as King noted, has repeatedly taken to the courts, fortunately with very little success, to stifle criticism. Thankfully, the First Amendment protections granted by the U.S. Constitution do not favor this latest tactic employed by the Islamist groups.

MPAC cannot stand to have its agenda exposed, especially when it comes in the form of having its own words, and the words of its officials, used against them. In their minds, any such efforts need to be stifled. MPAC's smear tactics have not worked, and as such, their lawyers have now stated that "MPAC is willing to pursue all available legal remedies" to silence me. MPAC's bullying attempt to stifle free speech will not stand. Such tactics should be vigorously opposed, and MPAC, like CAIR before it, must learn that legal threats will not work to stifle legitimate criticism, especially when the facts underlying the criticism are both well documented, and as is often the case, straight out of the horse's mouth, so to speak.


[1] Aslam Abdullah, "The Truth Behind America's War on Terrorism," November 30, 2002,

[2] Amantha Perera, "US Muslims Fear Second Term for Patriot Act," Inter Press Service, May 7, 2004.

[3] "Relief Groups Shut Down," The Minaret, January 2002.

[4] H.G. Reza, "FBI Has a Pledge and a Request for Muslims," The Los Angeles Times, March 16, 2003.

[5] Stewart Bell, "Jihadization of youth a 'rapid process'; CSIS: Study Of Extremism," National Post, January 26, 2007.

[6] Robert King, "Muslims aim to challenge critics in America; Convention seminar focuses on best ways for followers to respond when their faith is attacked," Indianapolis Star, September 5, 2005

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, March 14, 2007.

I have always had a soft fond spot in my heart for Yehuda Meshi-Zahav. (His last name means golden silk). Years ago he was the bogeyman of the secularist Left, because he ran a group of ultra-Orthodox "Chareidi" radicals, who sometimes got physical with roudy youths in Bnei Barak whose behavior was not what they approved. See http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/11/24/meshi-zahav-from-outcast-to-hero/ But later Meshi-Zahav mellowed and has devoted his life to running ZAKA since 1989. ZAKA as you probably know, is the organization that attends to the victims of terror attacks and accidents. It carefully collects body parts for burial with dignity, and for identification. It does the work that would probably drive most of the rest of us to insanity and it does it as a religious misison. Its members have also served in other countries after disasters (such as the Tsunami) or atrocities. See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Orgs/zaka.html

It should surely be on your Zedaka list.

Meshi-Zahav is a fascinating guy. I actually bumped into him once face-to-face at an airport in Europe. He looks mischievous, like a chareidi leprechaun. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/static/pictures/resized/136-106/9/9637.jpg

WHich takes me to the event this week in which Meshi-Zahav emerged as one of the great contemporary heroes of Jewry:

This is called ZAKA head hits Neturei-Karta rabbi." It was written by Jerusalem Post Staff
and appeared yesterday (www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173700684970&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

I would now like to invite Meshi-Zahav to meet with some Post-Zionist academics.

Yehuda Meshi-Zahav, chairman of ZAKA and former operations officer for the Ultra-Orthodox community, hit the Jewish man who kissed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it was reported on Monday.

The violent incident occurred last Friday in Poland during a mass visit of Orthodox Jews to the country in order to honor Hassidic Rabbi Elimelech of Lizhensk.

When the visitors arrived at Lizhensk on Friday morning, they heard that Moshe Arye Freedman, a member of the fanatic anti-Israel group Neturei Karta, was present as well. Freedman recently made headlines when he was photographed kissing Ahmadinejad during the Holocaust denial conference in Teheran three months ago.

Meshi-Zahav, along with another ZAKA member, quickly located Freedman and set upon him, punching the man, kicking him and breaking his glasses.

The fight was dispersed when local police arrived at the scene.

As an act of appreciation, Meshi-Zahav was called up to read the Torah in synagogue.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. This appeared today in Arutz-Sheva

To Go To Top

Posted by Evelyn Hayes, March 14, 2007.

This was written by caroline Glick and it appeared February 26, 2007 in the Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894524953&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

The general tendency of Westerners is to view global jihad as a foreign policy issue. But today it is clear that it is also a domestic policy issue.

Over the weekend The Sunday Telegraph reported that a recently circulated British intelligence report warned: "The terrorist threat facing Britain from home-grown al-Qaida agents is higher than at any time since the September 11 attacks in 2001."

After foiling the jihadist plot to down US-bound British passenger aircraft last summer, MI5 director Eliza Manningham-Buller claimed that there are some 1,600 British Muslims actively involved in plotting attacks against Britain. According to the intelligence report cited in the Sunday Telegraph, today that number exceeds 2,000.

As one senior British political source told the newspaper, "The Security Services have constantly warned that the task of countering Islamic terrorism is a daunting one. There will be more attacks in Britain."

It is not surprising that Britain faces the specter of mass attacks carried out by its own citizens in the name of Allah. Repeated exposes of the goings-on in British mosques and in supposedly "moderate" British Muslim communal organizations have shown unequivocally that they are being used as indoctrination centers for jihad.

A poll published last month by Britain's Policy Exchange think tank bore out the poisonous impact this indoctrination has had on young Muslims in the country. Thirty-seven percent of British Muslims between the ages of 16-24 would rather live under Shari'a law than under British Common Law; 36 percent think Muslims should be killed if they convert to another religion; 13 percent admire al-Qaida and similar terror groups; and a whopping 74 percent of young British Muslims believe womenshould wear veils.

WHILE IT is true that in the US the danger of home-grown jihadists to national security is lower than it is in Britain, it is also true that there is a growing phenomenon of jihadist violence being perpetrated by Muslim men against American civilians in the name of jihad.

Ten days ago, the Investors Business Daily published an editorial enumerating a partial list of acts of terrorism carried out by Muslim men against their fellow Americans since the September 11 attacks. Most recently, Sulejman Talovic entered a shopping mall in Salt Lake City, murdered five and wounded four unsuspecting shoppers before being killed by an off-duty police officer.

As was the case when Derrick Shareef, another Muslim male, was arrested in early December for plotting to carry out a similar attack at a shopping mall in Illinois just before Christmas, the media and the law enforcement agencies covering the Salt Lake City massacre have made light of the fact that the perpetrator was a Muslim.

While Talovic is dead and so cannot explain his motives to authorities, Shareef was arrested after telling an FBI informant of his plans to murder Jews specifically and Americans in particular for Allah. As Shareef told the informant, "I swear by Allah man, I'm down for it too. I'm down for the cause. I'm down to live for the cause and die for the cause, man."

SHAREEF'S protestations of jihadist ardor made little impression on either federal authorities or the media. Upon announcing Shareef's arrest, US Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald insisted that he was acting on his own and that he had no outside inspiration for his decision to commit mass murder for Allah. As was the case with Talovic and with Naveed Afzal Haq, who murdered one woman and wounded five during his shooting rampage at the Seattle Jewish Federation last July, the media and federal authorities have hushed up and failed to investigate the jihadist motives for the Illinois attacker or link him to any larger phenomenon.

The Investors Business Daily editorial ran under the headline "Sudden jihad syndrome." The term, which has been bandied about by law enforcement officials in both the US and Britain in recent months, encapsulates the view that Muslims can be incited and then move to commit acts of murder in the name of Allah and jihad instantaneously.

The attractiveness of the "sudden jihad syndrome" explanation for violent Islamic crime is clear. By arguing that the jihadists are acting on their own after being mysteriously inspired by no one, law enforcement officials and the media are relieved of the thankless task of investigating mosques, Muslim advocacy groups and Islamic centers, where the jihadist indoctrination is conducted on a daily basis.

IT IS hard to know what to make of this view. Perhaps there is something to it. Perhaps the message of jihad is so strong that young Muslim men can be inspired to shoot pregnant women in office buildings after the notion of murder for Allah enters the transoms of their minds independently of other outside factors -- through vapors or spontaneous generation perhaps.

What is clear enough is that since this is the view that is informing policymakers, law enforcement officials and the media in handling a clear trend of jihadist murder, it requires serious empirical study. The obvious place for that research to take place is in the universities.

Unfortunately, there can be little hope that universities in the US or in the West in general will devote any serious consideration to this most important sociological, psychological and national security trend. Far from being willing to study the most central issue of our times, universities are leading the charge in either ignoring it, or apologizing for it.

On February 15, the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN, Hamid Al Bayati, spoke at New York's Fordham University. During the course of his remarks, Bayati doubted the fact that the Holocaust had occurred. In his words, "I'm not aware of any dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people. Some academics or diplomats would say Hitler used chemical weapons, but I am sure he didn't use them against his own people -- his German people."

When pressed by law professor Avi Bell on the fact that several hundred thousand German citizens were gassed to death by Nazi Germany, Bayati still refused to take the point.

Fordham University is far from alone in providing a platform for Holocaust deniers. Last Thursday the Dean's office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology co-sponsored an event on the Arab-Israel conflict called, "Foreign Policy and Social Justice: A Jewish View, a Muslim View." The man invited to provide the Jewish view was Dovid Weiss, a member of the crackpot Neturei Karta sect. Weiss rose to prominence when he traveled to Teheran last December to participate in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial conference.

While MIT and Fordham were hosting Holocaust deniers in the name of intellectual freedom, their fellow universities were hosting "Israel Apartheid Week." As part of their efforts to criminalize the Jewish state, Arab and Jewish speakers at "Israel Apartheid Week" events refer to Israel as "1948 Palestine" and show propaganda films portraying IDF soldiers and Israeli civilians in Judea and Samaria as murderers.

The events are generally sponsored by the International Solidarity Movement. In addition to their campus outreach, the ISM sponsors the weekly riots against the security fence in Bil'in and in Hebron, where its protesters throw rocks at IDF soldiers. Given the violent content of their actions in Israel, it should come as no surprise that their events on US campuses also breed violence.

At an "Israel Apartheid Week" event at City University of New York, after watching a propaganda film, 19-year old Binyamin Rister rose and politely asked the ISM presenters if they supported terrorism. When he received no reply he politely repeated the question. Rather than wait for an answer, CUNY security guards dragged Rister from the room and then repeatedly banged his head against the wall of an elevator and threw him head first down the stairs. Rister's injuries from the assault by campus security required him to be evacuated by ambulance in a neck brace to the hospital.

In an almost identical case at Georgetown last year, Bill Maniaci a 65-year-old retired Jewish American police officer was brutalized by Georgetown security guards after he asked ISM spokesmen if they supported terrorism. He is currently suing Georgetown for $8 million in damages for the assault. According to Lee Kaplan's report of the CUNY event in Frontpage Magazine, there were seven witnesses to the unprovoked attack against Rister. He too has filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against CUNY.

EVEN THOSE propounding the view that jihadist murderers in the US and Britain are inspired to kill after being brought under the spell of the "sudden jihad syndrome" cannot deny that the root of the jihad is ideas. Similarly, it is self-evident that the key to beating the global jihad is victory in the battlefield of ideas. Unfortunately, as the pro-jihadist trend on US and Western campuses, and its impact on idea consumers in law enforcement, the media and policy circles throughout the free world shows, to the extent that those charged with engaging in the battle of ideas are engaged, they fight on the side of the enemy.

Contact Evelyn Hayes at haze@rcn.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 14, 2007.


Iran's economy is reeling. It needs foreign aid to survive. Armed dissidents attack its facilities. But the State Dept. refuses to release funds for Iranians to overthrow the regime. US-sponsored broadcasts often toe the Iranian line.

The US does now attack Iranian agents helping insurgents in Iraq (but that could be just part of the war effort in Iraq and not intended as a measure against Iran).

An EU report secretly admitted that its negotiations did not change Iran nor are further negotiations likely to. Sec. Rice and Pres. Bush still think diplomacy can resolve matters, although Iran is promoting jihad more actively than ever. The US thinks its diplomacy has resolved the nuclear problem with N. Korea. It hasn't. It seems mainly to pay N. Korea for agreeing to consider to suspend some nuclear work temporarily. Besides a payment of fuel, the US would cancel banking sanctions. Those sanctions kept from N. Korea the capital needed to sustain its regime while it exercised nuclear blackmail. N. Korea already has violated the new agreement.

The US deals in a similarly futile with the P.A., but fails to admit it doesn't work (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 2/16) contrary to claims. It does work to undermine Israel.


Terrorists are being arrested all over the world. Security forces use intelligence agents, roadblocks, and bribes to create a network of informants. The international media likes to talk about the lives saved in all the countries except Israel. When Israel uses roadblocks to thwart terrorism, the world complains that it is an oppressor using excessive means (Hillel Halkin, IMRA, 2/24).


Although the losses of the war in Lebanon and Gaza, induced by earlier Israeli withdrawals from there, disgraced the government policy of withdrawal, and PM Olmert said that he no longer was considering such a policy, he secretly has formed task forces to implement just such a policy. In so doing, he has separated the government from the national security interests of Israel. His government well knows that, as was demonstrated in Lebanon and Gaza, any area from which Israel withdraws becomes a terrorist base for further attacks on Israel. His is a government of treason. Why does the government act more in behalf of the Arab enemy than of its own people? Bought by the State Dept. or EU? Blackmailed by prosecutors? Hating their own people? (Winston Mid East Analysis, 2/15). Contemporary leftist philosophy considers it a moral duty to put the enemy first. How perverted!


Israel suspected Jordanian diplomats of smuggling contraband into Israel. Its border guards stopped the diplomats from entering, unless they would let their cars be inspected. The diplomats refused, and returned to Jordan. Jordan protested the demand as a violation of the Vienna Convention.

The Convention permits such inspection. Jordan claimed that Israel had no reason to suspect anything (IMRA, 2/19). That's up to Israel.

Time after time, the Arabs exempt themselves from agreements they signed. P.A. VIPs used to smuggle arms that way. (See next, below.)


The head of IDF intelligence told the Knesset that Hizbullah has rearmed and now possesses more firepower than it did before the war. An MK reached the logical conclusion that Israel did not win the war that just months later leaves its foe stronger than before.

Israel had set as a condition of ceasefire that Hizbullah would be disarmed. Hizbullah leader Nasrallah confidently asserted that Hizbullah would not disarm (Arutz-7, 2/19).

Islam does not believe in keeping agreements with infidels unless it has to. Israel's mistake was in making an agreement with Hizbullah and leaving it to unreliable and hostile foreigners to enforce it.


Jewish Psalm books were torn up and strewn about the Sephardic cemetery in Hebron. A week before, religious objects in Hebron at the tombs of Jesse and Ruth, the father and great-grandmother of King David were damaged. Before that, graves were desecrated.

Hebron Jews complained that Israeli police do not apprehend criminals against the Jews but pounce on the Jews for imagined trifles (Arutz-7, 2/19).


Israel's leftist politicians utter falsehood and nonsense about the jihad against Israel. The major media, some controlled ideologically by the government, back up the politicians and fail to analyze their poor logic and false claims. Academia indoctrinates rather than teaches (Winston Mid East Analysis, 2/18).

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@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 13, 2007.

If you, or anyone you know, is still holding on to the dear, desperate, and by now terribly frayed strand of hope that being in political power will 'moderate' Hamas (because they will need to collect the garbage, etc...), be sure to read (or send them) the Reuters article below.

From Hassan el-Bana, to Sayyed Qtub, to the Hajj, to Arafat, to Sheikh Yassin, to Rantizi, to Mesha'al, to Haniyeh -- they all say the same thing: "we are going to destroy Israel, and genocide its Jews, even if we must do it one jew at a time." And all but a handful -- and I mean really a handful -- like six or seven out of 1,400,000,000) are silent.

Hamas et al versus Israel:

This war is not a dispute over borders, territory, freedom, or national self-determination. This is the endless terror assault of a truly evil tyrannical totalitarian triumphalist theocratic culturally retrograde barbaric genocidal force (acting in the name of, and motivated by the teachings of, Islam) against a modern, westernized, democratic, egalitarian state (guided and motivated in its origins and its development by the teachings of Judaism).

Some of my interlocutors have chastized me for using the 'invective' of calling Hamas "evil" or totalitarian, or triumphalist, etc..

I stand by my choice of adjectives.

As a reminder: the first article below is an essay I wrote last year, explaining why I use the term "evil" to describe Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and the PFLP and the DFLP and the PFLP-GC and the el-Aqsa martyrs' brigade and el-Qaeda and the PLO and el-fatah and the Muslim Brotherhood and el-Gama'a el Islamiyeh and Ansar el-Islam and the thirty or fourty other Arab or Muslim terror organizations that are at war with Israel and/or Western Civilization.

I am continuously puzzled by the fact that so few commentators on the topic of the Middle East conflict turn their attention to what I call the great moral divide.

It seems to me that this moral divide should be a really big factor in how westerners look at the dynamics of the conflict. Instead, it is almost never mentioned; and in fact, in my opinion (I do not have statistics, just my impressions based upon my reading and research of the past 6.5 years), many commentators assiduously avoid dealing with it, intentionally obfuscate it, or even lie about it.

Such obstructionist behavior by commentators makes me feel that the great moral divide must be really important...otherwise they would not be so reticent to deal with it.

As I see it, there are three aspects to the moral divide:

1.) What the Arab terrorists (*) do, say they want to do, and boast about what they have done or are going to do...is all really evil by any standard of western morality. No matter how it is spun by the various pundits and journalists and politicians and academicians and pseudo-statespersons who serve as cheerleaders for the terrorists, the obvious bottom line, based upon the terrorists' own words and deeds, is:

attempted genocide,
incitement to genocide,
diatribe of genocide,
targeting of civilians for murder,
attempted murder of civilians,
mass murder of civilians,
attempted mass murder of civilians,
attempted kidnapping,
hate speech,
hate preach,
hate teach,
pressing women into terrorist service (at times without their knowledge and/or against their will),
pressing children into terrorist service (usually without their knowledge)
re-directing/mis-directing $$billions from intended beneficiaries to terrorist activities
re-directing $$ billions from intended beneficiaries to secret private accounts,
routine running of criminal activities, auto theft, extortion,
kidnapping their own for ransom,
and international trafficking of hard drugs for profits to fund terrorism,
impoverishing a whole population so that foreign aid can be embezzled and used for terrorism, denying a whole population its civil and human rights and its right to political self-determination via the democratic processes promised it by the UN and the USA and Israel...

all of these are galactic violations of a variety of international legislation regarding civil and human rights, international laws of war, international interdictions regarding genocide, international conventions, and internationally canonized rights of women and children and non-combatants.

any l of these is just plain evil.

And all of these are the defining characteristics of the Arab terrorists and various Moslem and Arab governmental authorities that support and fund and shelter and train and arm the terrorists.

Therefore, even if their cause were just (and since the Arab terrorist cause is the only cause in the world, and across all of world history, for which the only defining paradigm is terrorism, and the sole and unique goal is the destruction of a sovereign state and the genocide of its people, it should be obvious that their cause cannot be just -- but even if it were...), their methods are evil, their intentions are evil, their aspirations are evil, their words are evil, and their deeds are evil. They are evil (*).

Silence (and obfuscation and justification all the more so) in the face of evil is complicity.
Complicity with evil is evil.

They and their cheerleaders are evil. (**)

2.) What many of the leaders(*) of many Arab and some non-Arab Moslem states say and do and teach and preach in support of the Arab terrorists is evil.

Openly, knowingly, enthusiastically cheering and supporting evil is evil.

Never before, in all of human history, has there been such a massive expenditures of money, resources, human efforts, and energy that many Arab and some Moslem state leaders have made, for over three-quarters of a century, in order to destroy Israel and exterminate its Jews; either with their own forces, or by support of proxy Arab terrorist forces. Even the Nazi campaign to exterminate the Jews of Europe never reached the multi-national dimensions and umpteen billions of dollars of expenditures and endless relentless international propaganda campaigns of Arab leaders and Arab states -- and all for the sole purpose of destroying one small nation and its Jewish citizenry.

Where else in the world, and in all of human history, do we find the leaders of so many sovereign states endlessly diverting resources, for decades, from their own people, and neglecting their own people's needs, in order to eradicate one small sovereign state?

Where else in the world, and across all of human history, do we see such enormous energy poured into international collaboration for the propagation of the PR and propaganda and revisionist history and political machinations and mendacious mis-information that have characterized the Arab political and propaganda assaults on Israel?

And this assault has been going on within the family of nations and at the UN and in the intellectual arenas of the Western world, for decades ...and all with the sole intent to demonize Israel so that it will lose the support of its allies, and thus be easier prey when its Arab enemies are ready to launch their great final jihad?

The sheer obscenity of such a heinous endeavor is beyond description; but no one seems willing to comment on the pure evil of such design.

Consider too the commitment that these state leaders have made to an education system that systematically demonizes Israel and Israelis (and in some cases Jews and Judaism), in order to create in the minds of their youth (today's sophomore is tomorrow's Senator) the cross-generational trajectory that will keep the evil alive, and will provide justification for those evil expenditures and evil goals.

Teaching children to hate is child abuse raised to the level of public policy. Child abuse is evil.

And finally, consider the cost of the lost opportunities. What would the Middle East look like today if Arab leaders had been willing to cooperate with the Zionists in the application of western agrarian technology, medicine, epidemiology, industrial technology, and science in general, to the Arab waste lands and to the impoverished peasantry who barely eked out a subsistence living on those waste lands? And how much more so, had neighboring Arab states been willing to make peace with, and work with, and build with, both Israel and the state of "Palestine" which would have come into existence with the UN partition plan of 11/29/1947?

Look at the sand dunes 8 miles north of Jaffa in 1911. Then look at Tel Aviv today, built on those sand dunes. Something similar could have happened in the desert south of Damascus, in the waste land north of Amman, in parts of the Sinai desert east of Egypt, on the eastern shores of the Dead Sea, and more, had the Arab leaders been willing to work with Jews, with Zionists.

The cold, bitter, implacable, brutal, primitive and baseless hatred that so many in the Arab world bear toward Israel, Israelis, Zionism, Jews and Judaism -- that is evil.

And those Arab leaders who have let themselves be run by this hatred, and who have used it to run others, for decades -- they are evil.

And evil too are their intellectual collaborators in both Arab and western nations, who try to spin for us a new pseudo-reality in which that hatred has "just cause" and that terrorism is spawned by "real grievances"!.

Baseless brutal hatred is evil. And all the more so when it impels the haters toward violence and war and destruction and terrorism and mass murder and genocide.

3.) Judaism is not evil. Zionism is not evil. Israel is not evil. Neither Judaism not Zionism nor Israel preach or teach or do the horrid deeds described above that have become the hallmark of Arab terrorists, terrorism and terrorist states.

There are evil people among Jews, Israelis, Zionists, as there are among all groups across the world. Israel as a state, and Zionists as active participants in the creation of that state, have done some bad things, some times, to some people, as have all states at some time.

But there is a radical and substantive difference between a state doing some bad things, making some mistakes, harming some people...and a state or group whose core intentions and goals and methods and deeds and official policies are evil.

No state is perfect. No society is flawless. And this is certainly true of Israel as a state and as a society. But even if all the lies that Arab PR and propaganda have perpetrated were true (they are not, they are all lies, but even if they were true), the fate that the Arab terrorists, and their state enablers, and their mendacious cheerleaders, all avidly seek for Israel would not be justified. The extermination of an entire people cannot be justified, ever, except in the hearts and minds of truly evil people.

No Jewish leader, no Zionist leader, no Israeli leader, ever, during the entire history of Zionism and the State of Israel, ever perpetrated the heinous acts described in #1 and #2 above: acts which are the hallmarks of the Arab terrorists and their enablers; and which are part of the very core of Arab political ideology.

Yet, almost no one discusses the sheer evil of the Arab anti-Israel (and anti-Jewish) program.

It is as though the Arabs get a free pass to be evil and get away with it. And, not surprisingly, the same is true of their much ballyhooed and state-supported Holocaust denial.

Virtually alone among peoples of the world, Arabs appear to have won a free pass when it comes to denying or minimizing the Holocaust. Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah has declared to his supporters that "Jews invented the legend of the Holocaust." Syrian President Bashar al-Assad recently told an interviewer that he doesn't have "any clue how [Jews] were killed or how many were killed." And Hamas's official Web site labels the Nazi effort to exterminate Jews "an alleged and invented story with no basis."

Such Arab viewpoints are not exceptional. A respected Holocaust research institution recently reported that Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia all promote Holocaust denial and protect Holocaust deniers.

The records of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum show that only one Arab leader at or near the highest level of government -- a young prince from a Persian Gulf state -- has ever made an official visit to the museum in its 13-year history. Not a single official textbook or educational program on the Holocaust exists in an Arab country. In Arab media, literature and popular culture, Holocaust denial is pervasive and legitimized. (Robert Satloff, "The Holocaust's Arab Heroes", Washington Post, 10.8.06).

This denial, criminal in some countries in the West, is standard government policy in many Arab and some Moslem countries.

Read the two essays below, for details of these heinous acts that are par for the course in the Arab war against the West; but which Israelis do not do, and have never done. And consider as well the tragic fact that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where anti-government demonstrations can muster up to 400,000 (June, 1982) proclaiming their opposition to war (in this case it was the Lebanon war), even as the enemy rains terrorist rockets on civilian communities.

Has there ever been a demonstration for peace in any Arab country, anywhere, at any time?

Israel is the only country in the Middle East where "women in black" can demonstrate outside of the Parliament building against the closure of crossing points in to Gaza (because it makes life harder for the Gazan Arabs), even as Qassam rockets from Gaza rain down on Sederoth.

Prof. Hanson ends his essay with the optimistic belief that "...most Americans can see the moral differences in the present struggle."

I would like to believe that he is right. But I see little direct evidence of any perception of this moral divide: not in our media, nor our universities, nor among our intelligencia. Most (but not all) of our political leaders seem to be on board with this concept; but so many in the arenas of intellectual, academic, journalistic, and artistic endeavors are clearly not.

So...I'm not sure that Hanson is right.

(*) Nota Bene! I'm talking ONLY about Arab terrorists, and the state leaders who support them, and the rank-and-file terrorists who join their terrorist groups, and the broader population throughout the world who support them.

I am NOT talking about your average Arab/Moslem man-on-the-street, regular person, nice civilian, non-terrorist, non-militant, who (I presume) wants nothing more than to lead a normal life, raise crops and a family, give his kids a good start in life, and leave the world a bit better off than he found it...same as you and I.

(**)And the evil is not limited to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Arab attacks on Arab healthcare workers,
misuse of the neutrality of Arab patients and ambulances,
destruction and violence and genocide of Moslem against Moslem in Sudan (Darfur as well as South Sudan), Iraq, Mauritania, Yemen, Algeria, Somalia, Lebanon, and Gaza, as well as in Israel --

-- this evil abounds throughout the Moslem world and has been a characteristic of the Moslem world since the days of the first Caliphs.

And the common thread through all of these calamities is the deep-seated religious and racial intolerance that causes Sunni and Shi'a Iraqis to massacre each other in mosques and markets and funerals and weddings, the ethnic cleansing of Darfur that has resulted in deaths and displacement by the hundreds of thousands, and worse in south Sudan that has resulted in the deaths of more than two million, as well as the irrational and psychotic rejection of Israel's right to exist on a small fragment of the Middle East's land.

Since 1948 Palestinian Arabs have repeatedly rejected sovereignty if the result is that Israel continues to exist. Even today, the Palestinians' popularly elected Hamas government, along with Hezbollah and others, refuse to consider any solution that includes a permanent Jewish state alongside the region's scores of Islamic countries.

Here is a partial list:

the savage Shiite-Sunni bloodletting in Iraq;
the barbarism of the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan;
the genocide in Sudan's Darfur region;
the Somali killings;
the Iranian mullahs' murder of their own people and support of mischief abroad;
the cross-border attack on Israel by Lebanese Hizbullah;
the incessant terrorist acts of Hamas and Islamic Jihad,
the fatwas of the Palestinians against Israel;
the bombing of Shiite mosques in Pakistan,
and the Shiite retaliation against soft, innocent and civilian targets.

Clearly, there is no place on the planet where Muslims reside that is in peace from the religion of peace. Spain, France, Holland, England, Thailand and Indonesia have already been attacked, while others, such as Belgium, have been threatened and sanctioned.

When Should We No Longer Support Israel?
By Victor Davis Hanson
March 30, 2004

Victor Davis Hanson is a respected author and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His most recent book, Between War and Peace: Lessons in Afghanistan and Iraq, is available from the FrontPage Magazine Bookstore for $13.95.

The recent assassination of Sheik Yassin raises among some Americans the question: "at what point should we reconsider our rather blanket support for the Israelis and show a more even-handed attitude toward the Palestinians?"

The answer, it seems to me, should be assessed in cultural, economic, political, and social terms.

Well, we should no longer support Israel, when:

Mr. Sharon suspends all elections and plans a decade of unquestioned rule.

Mr. Sharon suspends all investigation about fiscal impropriety as his family members spend millions of Israeli aid money in Paris.

All Israeli television and newspapers are censored by the Likud party.

Israeli hit teams enter the West Bank with the precise intention of targeting and blowing up Arab women and children.

Pre-teen Israeli children are apprehended with bombs under their shirts on their way to the West Bank to murder Palestinian families.

Israeli crowds rush into the street to dip their hands into the blood of their dead and march en masse chanting mass murder to the Palestinians.

Rabbis give public sermons in which they characterize Palestinians as the children of pigs and monkeys.

Israeli school textbooks state that Arabs engage in blood sacrifice and ritual murders.

Mainstream Israeli politicians, without public rebuke, call for the destruction of Palestinians on the West Bank and the end to Arab society there.

Likud party members routinely lynch and execute their opponents without trial.

Jewish fundamentalists execute with impunity women found guilty of adultery on grounds that they are impugning the honor of the family.

Israeli mobs with impunity tear apart Palestinian policemen held in detention.

Israeli television broadcasts to the tune of patriotic music the last taped messages of Jewish suicide bombers who have slaughtered dozens of Arabs.

Jewish marchers parade in the streets with their children dressed up as suicide bombers, replete with plastic suicide-bombing vests.

New Yorkers post $25,000 bounties for every Palestinian blown up by Israeli murderers.

Israeli militants murder a Jew by accident and then apologize on grounds that they thought he was an Arab, to the silence of Israeli society.

Jews enter Arab villages in Israel to machine gun women and children.

Israeli public figures routinely threaten the United States with terror attacks.

Jewish assassins murder American diplomats and are given de facto sanctuary by Israeli society.

Israeli citizens celebrate on news that 3,000 Americans have been murdered.

Israeli citizens express support for Saddam Hussein's supporters in Iraq in their efforts to kill Americans.

So until then, I think most Americans can see the moral differences in the present struggle.

If the Palestinians wish to hold periodic and open elections, establish an independent judiciary, create a free press, arrest murderers, subject their treasury to public scrutiny, eschew suicide murdering, censure religious leaders who call for mass murder, embrace non-violent dissidents, extend equal rights to women, end honor killings, raise funds in the Arab world earmarked only to build water, sewer, transportation, and education infrastructure, and pledge that any Jews who choose to live in the West Bank will enjoy the same rights as Arabs in Israel...then they might find Americans equally divided over questions of land and peace.

But all that is a lot of ifs. And so for the present, Palestinian leaders should not be too surprised that Americans increasingly find very little in their society that has much appeal to either our values or sympathy. If they continually assure us publicly that they are furious at Americans, then they should at least pause, reflect, and ask themselves why an overwhelming number of Americans, not Jewish, not residents of New York, not influenced by the media, are growing far more furious with them.

Hamas says still seeks Israel's destruction
By Nidal al-Mughrabi
Mon Mar 12, 2007 AM ET
Reuters (not yet seen in major news media outlets)

The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas rejected on Monday criticism by al Qaeda's second-in-command and said it was still committed to Israel's destruction despite a power-sharing deal with the Fatah faction.

"We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine," Hamas said in a statement, in a clear reference to Israel as well as to the occupied West Bank.

In an audio recording posted on the Internet on Sunday, al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahri accused Hamas of serving U.S. interests by agreeing to respect past Palestinian peace accords with Israel in a recent Saudi-brokered unity government deal with moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah.

The coalition agreement fell short of meeting demands by the Quartet of peace mediators -- the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia -- to recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept existing interim peace deals.

Zawahri said the Mecca accord, which calmed weeks of Hamas-Fatah warfare in which more than 90 Palestinians were killed, was part of an attempt by Washington to offset Muslim anger at what he described as its bias toward Israel.

"It is an American scheme to hit the Islamic jihadist resistance against the Crusader-Zionist campaign. America wanted a sham solution to the Palestinian issue to remove the biggest reason for Muslim hatred (of the United States)," he said.


Zawahri accused Hamas of abandoning a tradition of suicide bombings for political gains. "They have ditched the movement of martyrdom operations ... for a government that plays with words in palace halls," he said.

Hamas killed nearly 300 Israelis in 58 suicide bombings after a Palestinian uprising began in 2000. It last carried out a suicide bombing in Israel in 2004.

In its statement Hamas said it continued to be a "movement of resistance, seekers of martyrdom" and that its "principles will never be changed."

"Zawahri's recent statements were wrong ... Resistance is our strategy. How and when? This depends on the reality at the time and our corresponding view of things," Hamas said.

"So be assured doctor Ayman, and all those who love Palestine like yourself, that Hamas is still the group you knew when it was founded and it will never abandon its path."

Hamas said its decision to run in the January 2006 Palestinian election that brought it to power and last month's unity deal with Fatah "came only to preserve the higher interests of the Palestinian people."

Hamas leaders have offered a long-term truce with Israel in return for a viable Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The group's 1988 founding chapter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Rachel Kapen, March 13, 2007.

On the nights of the 2nd and 3rd of April Jews in the United States and the world over will sit down to the Seder table -- in Israel only the first Seder is celebrated -- in order to celebrate the coming out of slavery in the Land of Egypt into freedom and eventual nationhood in the Land of Israel. However, in spite of the fact that the Seder is rich in scintillating readings and replete with the most beautiful and spirited hymns, the most famous among them: Dahy Dahyeyenu-it would have been enough- to me, the most meaningful utterings we emit at this most meaningful night in our Jewish calendar is when we sing in unison: "In every generation they come upon us to annihilate us but the holy one blessed be he delivers us from them" and later on we say in unison: that "In every generation a person should see himself as if he himself came out of Egypt," and indeed the Egypt we are referring to is not merely the actual one which happened so many years ago but all the other ones which followed. All the other catastrophes which befell the Jewish People throughout the generations including the one in Persia which we celebrated recently in Purim and culminating with the most horrible and unimaginable of all, the Shoah, the Holocaust, a watershed event in Jewish and world history still close enough to our times that there are still people able to testify to it, as well as the numerous wars of compulsion the State of Israel had to fight since its inception in 1948 in order to stay alive.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir of blessed memory once said that the Jews do not have the luxury of being pessimistic. So on that rather optimistic note let us hope and pray that when we sit down this year to the Seder table the