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


Lupine Hill in the Ela Valley (Yehoshua Halevi)

Cherry Blossom, Washington DC (Carrie Devorah)

Yehoshua HaLevi writes: "One of my favorite spring haunts is Tel Socho, also known as Givat Hathermosim or, in English, Lupine Hill, off route 375 in the Ela Valley near Beit Shemesh. A popular hiking spot for families, the hill is an easy 10-minute ascent to one of the richest concentrations of wildflowers I have discovered in Israel. Although there are at least two dozen varieties growing there, the dominant flower is the purple lupine, seen here, which grows primarily on the top and southern slope. This photo is another example of how I try to merge land and sky into a unified composition. I love dramatic cloud formations as complements to the main subject. The position and length of the clouds in this image forced the vertical composition, and I chose a low camera angle which follows the slope of the hill down to the left, thereby creating a sweeping, almost circular motion from the stems and flowers up through the clouds. The low angle of view, as opposed to the angle most often used by photographers -- shooting down from a standing position –– offers a more detailed and engaging look at the flowers. By crouching down and shooting up, I was able to extend the tops of the uppermost flowers above the horizon line and into the sky, which brings together the two main elements of the photo." Contact him at smile@goldenlightimages.com.

Carrie Devorah is a professional photographer based in Washington D.C. Her beat is the White House, special events, meetings, conferences and –– when in bloom –– cherry blossoms. Contact her at editor@carrieon.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Patricia Berlyn, March 31, 2008.

Those living far from Israel may think of life here mostly in terms of reports in the standard new media. That means an impression of tension, apprehension, peril and murderous attacks that carry with them grief and horror.

That is why I would like to share with you this account of doings Tuesday evening in the small town where I live.

Just after dark, as I was sitting at my computer slogging away at a book I am writing, I heard very loud music and singing near my house. At first I thought it came from a neighboring residence, and that a television set was on much too loud. Then I found it that it came from the street outside my house, and went out to check the reason for the commotion.

It was a procession on the way to install a new Torah in a yeshiva a few blocks away. I at once joined the procession. The population in this town is about 12,000, and I would take a guess that several thousand of them were in the procession.

First came a van that carried the music-making apparatus, and it was very lively and joyful music. On top of the van was an emblem shaped like a Torah Crown, flashing in colored lights.

Next came the Torah itself, carried by Yeshiva boys, under a red velvet canopy embroidered in gold and trimmed with gold fringe –– like the huppah under which the bride and groom stand at a wedding.

Next came the procession that escorted it; men, women, and children –– all vigorously singing and clapping and occasionally stopping to dance, while fireworks flashed glittered above us.

When we reached the street outside of the Yeshiva the celebration reached its peak, with dancers from young students to aged greybeards, all virtually ecstatic with happiness.

It is likely that all of those in the procession –– except for the babies snug in their prams –– must have been thinking of our blessed lost boys. But this was the Israeli response to that hideous cruelty –– to treasure and celebrate our heritage.

It was a privilege to have been part of it. I wish you could all have seen it.


Patricia Berlyn is an essayist, an American who made aliyah. She authors the A Time to Speak columns at http:www.israel.net/timetospeak. To subscribe, write ATTS@actcom.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tessa (Hadar), March 31, 2008.

In spite of media propaganda, reflecting a small percentage of the Israeli public, it's not Peace Now's ideas that have made deep inroads among Israelis in the last 20 years

The following are data on the ever growing support among Israeli Jews for the transfer of hostile elements, support that was certainly smaller by 80% 20 years ago.

It is even more interesting to notice that such suport has grown IN SPITE of an ever growing and uninterrupted MEDIA campaign, accompanied by judicial activism, supporting just the opposite.

This was written by Hillel Fendel and it appeared in Arutz-Sheva

(IsraelNN.com) A survey carried out the Panels Research Institute finds that more than 75% of Israelis see partial or total transfer for Israeli-Arabs out of Israel in any final-status agreement that includes a Palestinian state.

The poll asked whether it would be justified, in the framework of an agreement for the establishment of a Palestinian state, to demand the transfer out of Israel of all Arabs. Nearly 30% said yes with no reservations, while 28% said only Arabs who did not express loyalty to Israel should be expelled. In addition, another 19% said that Arabs who lived in areas bordering the PA-controlled areas, such as Wadi Area and the southern Galilee, should be transferred out.

The remainder, just under 25%, said no Arabs should be transferred out.

The survey encompassed 668 respondents, taking part in a series of Panel4All internet surveys. The Panels Institute says the respondents are a representative sampling of the adult population in Israel, and that the margin of error is 3.7%.

Another finding of the survey shows that 43% of Israelis feel Arabs in Israel are discriminated against. In addition, 40% feel that Israeli-Arabs have an exclusively Palestinian national identity, while 50% feel they have both Palestinian and Israeli national identities, with the former taking precedence.

Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Olivier Guitta, March 31, 2008.

Under the banner of the World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders, Osama Bin Laden issued a fatwa, or religious edict, in February 1998, calling it a religious duty of Muslims "to kill the Americans and their allies –– civilians and military –– in any country it is possible." This statement marked, for most experts, the birth of what was later called al-Qaida.

Now, 10 years after its birth, some experts, in particular in the Arab world, estimate that al-Qaida is thriving. Coincidentally, some of the same analysts are actually blaming the United States for this, insisting that the U.S. is using the terrorism excuse to dominate the world.

For instance, Egyptian analyst Diaa Rashwan said that it is only when the U.S. gives up its plans to dominate the world that al-Qaida will start getting weaker and lose ground. In the same vein, Muhammad Darif, a Moroccan expert on radical Islam, told the Egyptian daily Al Fagr: "?terrorism has become the whip the United States uses against any country that doesn't follow the superpower in the new world order."

These are two very questionable assessments, to say the least. In fact, it is quite telling that the responsibilities are reversed and that, in a way, al-Qaida and the United States are on the same level.

Working on that assumption that the U.S. is trying to dominate the world and also wage a war against Islam, let's take a look at the pre-9/11 time period. Incidentally, al-Qaida's argument dating back to 1998 is totally flawed because the United States has actually a recent history of intervening to save Muslims in the world, from helping the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to Lebanon, to Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Even the first Iraq war was fought with the help and the support of most Muslim countries.

In a post 9/11 world, it is very questionable to deem that the United States is using terrorism to build an "empire." It is also vital to underline that al-Qaida's war is not aimed at just the U.S. but rather against the West in its whole. Viewing it just as a dichotomist war between al-Qaida and the U.S. is clearly ignoring the facts.

In a previous assessment of al-Qaida, Darif also said: "Al-Qaida has suffered tremendously from the Western propaganda, and [also] from the regimes that succeeded in tarnishing its image ? by presenting it as an organization targeting civilians." The facts prove him wrong: first, it was not Western propaganda that tarnished al-Qaida's reputation but rather its actions; second, al-Qaida has a long history of almost exclusively targeting civilians (from the bombings against the U.S. embassies in east Africa in 1998 to 9/11, to Bali, Casablanca, Madrid, Amman, London and Iraq). Interestingly, one of the proofs of al-Qaida's declining influence is that by targeting civilians in Muslim countries, it has lost tremendous popularity in the Muslim world.

But more than anything, it is al-Qaida's failure in Iraq that has clearly inflicted the maximum damage to Bin Laden's organization. Indeed, there, al-Qaida failed to mobilize the masses mostly because it killed gruesomely scores of civilians and also because it lost its charismatic emir, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, who was killed by U.S. forces in June 2006.

Al-Qaida suffered another blow when a drone killed one of his most senior operatives, Abu Laith al-Libi, in January 2008 in Afghanistan.

Another sign of al-Qaida's recent decline includes the fact that they reached out to groups that they previously shunned: for example, the Algerian GSPC (Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat) was brought into the fold and changed its name in January 2007 to al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). And finally the recent public dissension within the movement, proven by the recent spat between Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's No. 2, and its former mentor Sayed Imam al-Sherif (aka Dr. Fadl), is clearly pointing to a deterioration of the internal situation. Incidentally, CIA Director Michael Hayden told The Washington Times on March 11 that internal divisions between Saudi and Egyptian leaders of al-Qaida are producing "fissures" within the terrorist group.

While al-Qaida still clearly represents a forceful threat (especially with its recent regrouping in Afghanistan and Pakistan), it has witnessed serious setbacks.

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

This appeared in Middle East Times
http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/03/31/ al-qaida_waning_on_10th_birthday/4324/

To Go To Top

Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, March 31, 2008.

This material is excerpted from the Myths and Facts website run by Eli E. Hertz. Visit the website at www.MythsandFacts.com for accurate and important information on the Arab-Israeli conflict such as "The U.S. Congress in 1922,"

The "Mandate for Palestine" granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a right unaltered in international law and valid to this day. Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria (i.e., the West Bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal.

This material is provided to enhance the understanding of the Jewish people's legal rights as granted by the international community in 1922 –– the right to live in peace and security in its designated Jewish National Home. This is not a question of right or left, for or against ... These are Jewish rights that should be recognized by the world communty before any negotiation is aimed at resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Contact Doris Wise Montrose at doris@cjhsla.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Rachel Neuwirth, March 31, 2008.

More and more people have been saying to me, "I realize that Jews are facing a major crisis in Israel, here in America, in Europe, and everywhere in the world. But what can I do about it? I am just one person. Vast forces are threatening Israel. Can I stop anti-Israelism and anti-Judaism on my own? I feel helpless in the face of the vast forces that are arrayed against us."

These are natural and normal human feelings. I have felt them at times myself. The confluence of international forces that has gathered against the Jewish people and faith, including the spiritual and intellectual fifth column amongst us, is indeed a formidable adversary. Nevertheless, there are things we can do if we are willing to work together to protect our rights and stand up to the massive defamation campaign waged against us.

One very important thing that all of us can do is to counter the endless lies and distortions of Israel's history and character that appear in the press, mass media, on the Internet, and even in scholarly journals. These distortions and outright falsehoods are a major reason why Israel is in such deep trouble, and in danger of "going under." Because the entire world has been led to believe an inaccurate, grossly distorted "narrative" of the conflict, the government of Israel feels it has no choice but to make concessions to the demands of its enemies, in order to appease world opinion. But these concessions imperil Israel's existence.

Each of us can help to correct this appalling situation by acting immediately, whenever we encounter such a distortion in the press or mass media, to correct it with a letter to the editor or news manager. We can also actively monitor the mass media on the Internet in order to locate as many distortions as we can and correct them. Further, we can speak up to counter distortions in public lectures and meetings about the Arab-Israel conflict, and even in private conversations. All of this requires work and time, but it really does help. Each of us should devote as much time and energy to these tasks as we possibly can.

But in order to counter the endless flow of lies and distortions about Israel, we must first learn what the true facts of Israel's history are. Before we can answer the chorus of unfair criticisms leveled against Israel and her supporters in the United States and elsewhere, we must first educate ourselves.

What are the facts about the conflict over "Palestine" that Arab and other anti-Israel propagandists have distorted, misrepresented and covered up? The following are some, although by no means all, of the most important ones:

The Israelis are not colonialists or alien "settlers" in the Land of Israel with no past connection or relationship to the country; on the contrary, we Jews have lived in Israel for at least 3,200 years if not longer. This is far longer than most peoples have lived in their present national homelands. Our two glorious temples, wonders of the ancient world, were there for a thousand years. King David's kingdom endured for more than four hundred years; later, there was the independent Jewish state of the Maccabees. Jews had lived in the Land of Israel in large numbers for at least 1,800 years before the Arabs conquered it in 635 C.E. Moreover, while hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from their land or put to death in it by foreign conquerors, there have been at least some Jews living there almost continuously for 3,200 years.

There has never been a distinctive "Palestinian" Arab people or an Arab "Palestine" state or nation; while it is true that some Arabs have lived in the Land of Israel for many centuries, they have never been ethnically or culturally distinct or different from the Arabs who live in other lands, including the original Arab homeland, the Arabian Peninsula. The Jews, however, are a people who originated in the Land of Israel and never had any other national homeland.

During over a thousand years of Muslim rule, "Palestine" was rarely the name even of an administrative district, let alone a nation. Arabs referred to the entire land that now comprises Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel and the "occupied territories" as "al-Shams" (Syria), which they regarded as one country.

While the Land of Israel, also called "Palestine" by Romans and Europeans, was densely populated in ancient times, its population steadily declined during over 1,000 years of Muslim rule. In the nineteenth century, Israel/Palestine was very thinly settled. There was very little agriculture, and extensive abandoned and uninhabited "waste" lands. Most of the population, such as it was, lived in dire poverty. Brigandage was such an established and accepted way of life that it was impossible to travel on the roads without the payment of large bribes to the leading men of each village along the way. The roads themselves were no more than unpaved footpaths. Villages fought wars with each other. Nomadic Bedouin tribes frequently raided villages and even larger towns. The inhabitants of the few larger towns (there were no real cities) had to cower behind thick walls and locked gates every night for security.

The Arab population of Israel/Palestine only began to grow in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, at the same time that Jews began to resettle the land. Jewish immigrants brought with them modernized agriculture, including the growing of oranges, which had been previously unknown; a market for Arab agricultural goods; employment at Jewish farms and factories; modern hospitals and medicine that saved thousands of Arab lives; the draining of swamps that had caused thousands of deaths from malaria and other insect-born diseases; and vastly expanded Arab education funded by Jewish taxes.

The Arab population of Palestine has grown extensively, from under 500,000 in 1891 to over 3,600,000 today, partly because of increased life expectancy brought about by the economic and scientific progress introduced by Jewish immigrants/settlers, but also in part because of extensive immigration to Palestine from many Arab countries.

As a result, many of the Arabs who call themselves, or who are called by other Arabs "Palestinians," have ancestors who originated in Egypt, Syria, what are now Saudi Arabia, the Sudan and other Arab countries. These Arab countries ought rightfully to give these "Palestinians" citizenship, but refuse to do so.

The Arabs, including and especially the Palestinian Arabs, have been the aggressors throughout the nearly 100 years of the Arab-Israel conflict. This "one long war" began with the communal violence that convulsed Palestine between 1920 and 1948, even before Israel was founded.

Palestinian and other Arabs organized and carried out massive pogroms against the Jews of Palestine in 1920, 1921 and 1929, waged a sustained terrorist campaign against them from 1936 through 1939, and a full-scale jihad against them in 1947-48. Thousands of Palestinian terrorist/guerillas, the regular armies of six Arab states, and "volunteers" from throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds all participated in this aggressive war. Before the 1947-48 Arab attack against the Palestinian/Israeli Jews there had been few if any displaced Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs were not innocent bystanders in the war that made them refugees. They initiated the war in which some, although not all, of them fled from parts of Israel in 1948. They killed over two thousand Jews in that war. The six invading Arab states killed over 4,300 more Jews.

The Israelis defended themselves as best they could against these unprovoked attacks. But they did not expel the Palestinian Arabs. Many Arab leaders as well as ordinary Palestinian Arabs have admitted that Arab leaders urged the Arabs living in Palestine to flee, promising them that Arab armies would soon defeat the Jews and allow them to return to their homes. Despite this bad advice, many Palestinian Arabs never left Israel, and became Israeli citizens, with full rights of citizenship. Today there are over one million Arab citizens and residents of Israel –– more than there were in 1947, before Israel was established.

Following this first major Arab-Israel war, the Arab states induced the United Nations to keep the Palestinian Arabs refugees and their descendants in "refugee camps" (actually segregated towns) for generations. All of the Arab states except Jordan denied the Palestinian Arabs citizenship and equal rights. Arab governments and the refugee camp administrations taught the Palestinians that it was their Arab duty to wage war against Israel in order to gain back the homes in what is now Israel where (some) of their ancestors had lived before 1948. This segregation and indoctrination of the Palestinian refugees, as well as their descendants to the third, fourth and all later generations, is the true origin of Palestinian terrorism, not Israeli "oppression" or "occupation."

Also following the Arab-Israel war of 1947-49, the Arab nations refused to sign peace treaties with Israel, sponsored Palestinian Arab terrorist raids into Israel in which hundreds of Israelis were killed, and waged war by economic boycott and propaganda as well. Last but not least, Egypt waged war by blockading Israeli shipping in the Suez Canal and in the Gulf of Aqaba (also called the Gulf of Eilat by Israelis). These acts of war severely damaged the Israeli economy in addition to causing widespread loss of life and injury to Israel's citizens.

Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks on, and raids into, Israel have been continuous since 1949. Whatever reprisal raids and counterterrorist operations Israel has conducted over these years against the Palestinian terrorists have been reluctant responses to aggression against Israeli civilians and soldiers--not deliberate attacks on Arab civilians, as Arab spokesman and much of the press in the West have misrepresented them.

Israel only "occupied" the so-called "occupied territories" in 1967 as a necessary act of self-defense, in response to a whole series of acts of aggression by the Arab world: two and a half years of Palestinian Arab terrorist raids sponsored by Syria; decades of Syrian shelling of Israeli border villages from artillery positions on the Golan Heights, the forced removal of United Nations peacekeepers from the Sinai by Egypt's President Nasser: a reinstatement of the Egyptian blockade of Israeli shipping in the Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba: the mobilization of the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armies along Israel's three borders, and public declarations of war on Israel by Egypt's Nasser, the government of Syria and other Arab regimes. Israel "occupied" these territories only as a means of forestalling the publicly proclaimed, imminent Arab invasion, and to stop the Jordanian shelling of Israeli Jerusalem. This Jordanian barrage had killed 17 Israelis and wounded many more before Israel moved to occupy the "West Bank," (more accurately known as Judea and Samaria).

Israel has now withdrawn from 90% of the territories that it occupied in 1967, including all of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza region, large parts of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank"), and part of the Golan Heights. But these very substantial concessions have failed to persuade the Arab world to make peace with Israel.

All of the other Arab-Israeli wars were also initiated or heavily provoked by Arab states, usually working in tandem with the Palestinian Arab terrorist groups whom they sponsored. Egypt forced a war with Israel in 1956 by sponsoring Palestinian terrorist raids deep into Israeli territory for more than two years, and by blockading Israeli shipping in the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba. In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched an unprovoked surprise attack on Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish year, Yom Kippur (the timing was surely no coincidence). Israel invaded Lebanon in 1981 only after years of Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks originating in that country; Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon in 2000, but was forced in 2006 to deal with renewed terrorist attacks into its territory from Lebanon -this time, by a Lebanese, not a Palestinian, terrorist organization, Hezbollah. Israel quickly withdrew from Lebanon again following a ceasefire.

Jewish settlements established since 1967 outside the pre-Six Day War ceasefire lines are not "illegal." The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, issued in 1922 with the unanimous support of the League member states and with the additional support of the United States (although it was not a member of the League), requires that the administration of Palestine "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency . . . close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes" (article 6). The International Court of Justice has ruled in a similar case (that of Southwest Africa) that the Mandate documents issued by the League of Nations remain international law, even though the League itself was disbanded in 1946, and its responsibilities transferred to the United Nations. The United Nations Charter (Article 80) states that the "rights of peoples" in the League of Nations Mandate documents remain in force, as well as the documents themselves.

The Israel "occupation" of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is also legal according to international law, for three reasons: 1) Israel only occupied these territories in a defensive war; 2) her enemies continue to wage an aggressive war of terror from these territories, requiring a continued Israel military presence in them for self-defense. 3) Israel has a better title to these territories than any other nation, since the League of Nations Mandate document for Palestine, which has never been rescinded, specifies that the administration of these territories "shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home," The British Mandatory power ceased when the State of Israel was born but the rights of the Jewish people to the land remain intact, since they are a "sacred trust of civilization," as defined by the Covenant of the League of Nations, Art. 22. These permanent rights are enshrined in the Trusteeship Chapter of the UN Charter [Chapter XII, Art. 80]

There are many, many additional salient facts about the conflict that supporters of Israel should learn in order to combat the campaign of defamation and slander waged against her throughout the world. Here we have had space only to summarize a few of the most important points. But learning even these few important facts makes a useful start for those who wish to be activists in correcting the lies and distortions about Israel's history and character. They make important "talking points" for responding to these lies and distortions, whether in the mass media, on the Internet, at lectures and public meetings, or in private conversations.

We need to remember Benjamin Franklin's observation during the American Revolution: "if we don't hang together, then most assuredly we shall hang separately." We Americans, whether Jewish, Christian and even Muslim, cannot separate our own freedom and security from that of Israel.


For the history of the Palestinian refugee problem, as well as good general introductions to the history of the Arab-Israel dispute, see Big Lies: Demolishing The Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel by David Meir-Levi, Introduction by David Horowitz, and Arab and Jewish Refugees –– The Contrast, by Eli E. Hertz For see Carta's Historical Atlas of Israel, the Jewish History Atlas, by Martin Gilbert, present the long and continuous history of the Jewish habitation of Israel/Palestine in clear, easy-to-follow language with visual aids. Also very helpful for this purpose is " Israel 's Story in Maps," produced by www.Israelinsider.com. For the condition of Palestine under Islamic rule before Jewish resettlement, see Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial, also Arnold Blumberg, Zion Before Zionism 1838-1880, and Saul S. Friedman, Land of Dust: Palestine at the Turn of the Century, Ms. Peters' book also contains documentation of the extensive Arab immigration to Palestine that went on at the same time as the Jewish resettlement. For the history of the Arab-Israel wars and Arab terrorism in Palestine, the best source is Neaten Lorch, One Long War: Arab versus Jew Since 1920, also excellent on this subject is Martin Gilbert, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Its History in Maps. Another book by Netanel Lorch, The Edge of the Sword: Israel's War of Independence 1947-49, gives the best account of the Palestinian and other Arab aggression in which the Palestinian Arab refugee "exodus" occurred. Also useful guides to these events are Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, O Jerusalem; and Jon and David Kimche, Both Sides of the Hill, also published also under the alternative title A Clash of Destinies. For the legality of the Israeli settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and the legality of the Israeli administration of these areas, see Eli E. Hertz, "This land is My Land: Mandate for Palestine; The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights; and Eugene V. Rostow, "Resolved: are the Settlements Legal?"

Professor Meir-Levi's pamphlet Big Lies can be downloaded from the www.frontpage.com web site, and can also be ordered in "hard copy" from that site. All of Mr. Eli E. Hertz's articles can all be downloaded from his www.mythsandfacts.org web site. Eugene V. Rostow's article can be found on the http://middleeastfacts.org web site and elsewhere on the web; it was originally published in the Oct. 21, 1991 issue of The New Republic. " Israel 's Story in Maps," is available for downloading on the www.Israelinsider.com web site, and can also be ordered on DVD. Carta's Historical Atlas of Israel can be ordered from eisenbrauns.com, TomFolio.com, Biblio-com, and Israel-catalog.com. Martin Gilbert's Jewish History Atlas and The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Its History in Maps can be ordered from Amazon.com. Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial can be ordered from http://shop.wnd.com/store, www.eretzyisroel.org, amazon.com, and other sites on the web. Professor Blumberg's Zion Before Zionism 1838-1880 can be ordered from amazon.com and antiqbook.com. Professor Friedman's Land of Dust can be obtained from www.Nowandtherebooks.com. Netanel Lorch's books One Long War and The Edge of the Sword can be ordered from Amazon.com and antiqbook.com. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre's O Jerusalem are available through amazon.com and centuryone.com. Jon and David Kimche's Both Sides of the Hill can be ordered through amazon.com, AmericanaExchange.com, BookNet.com, and alibris.com.

Pro-Israel activists wishing to counter the constant misrepresentations of Israel's history and actions should obtain, and read, as many of these or similar books and articles as possible.

Contact Rachel Neuwirth at rachterry@earthlink.com

This article appeared in the American Thinker

John Landau contributed to it.

To Go To Top

Posted by Heart to Heart, March 31, 2008.
What can a Bat Mitzvah mean?


All donations are tax-deductible

Heart to Heart helps disadvanted Israeli girls. Contact them at http://www.levlalev.com/contact.htm.

To Go To Top

Posted by Samuel Katz, March 31, 2008.

The Arab League makes use of a cognitive technique of propaganda called "turnspeak", where you attack someone and then turn it around 180 degrees and claim they attacked you. Because the truth is the exact opposite of the information being disseminated it is psychologically difficult to counter and leads to confusion.

Turnspeak leads to psychological confusion and a feeling of being "burned-out" or "overwhelmed" with too much information, effectively creating a blanket of "white noise" which makes clarity difficult to achieve.

Joan Peters, former White House consultant on the Middle East writes:

The term was first used by journalists to describe German propaganda after it invaded Czechoslovakia in March of 1939. To win sympathy for their invasion, the Germans practiced what has become known as "turnspeak". They turned the blame back on the Czechs for trying to precipitate an all-out war in the region. In other words, the Czechs in their attempt to hang onto their land were ready to plunge all of Europe into war.

How did the rest of Europe respond to this lie? They believed it. World leaders decided that something had to be done to preserve peace at any cost.

Author William Shirer, who was a reporter in Europe at the time, distilled the truth simply when he wrote, "Thus the plight of the German minority in Czechoslovakia was merely a pretext...for cooking up a stew in a land he [Hitler] coveted, undermining it, confusing and misleading its friends and concealing his real purpose...to destroy the Czechoslovak state and grab its territories..." [1]

The Arab claim that Jews are "Nazis" is not without motive. They are trying to obscure their own close connection with the Nazis. During World War II leading Muslims including Haj Amin al-Husseini worked for the Nazis in Germany and called for a intifada against Britain. Haji Amin al-Husseini was the grand mufti of Jerusalem, as well as Yasser Arafat's close relative and mentor

The Arabs, especially Iraq, sided with Germany during W.W.II. In May 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini issued a fatwa –– "summons to a holy war against Britain". The Mufti's widely heralded proclamation against Britain was declared in Iraq, and was instrumental in his 1941 pro-Nazi intifada in Iraqi. The Mufti also requested Arab-Americans not to support FDR.

Yasser Arafat's actual name is Abd al-Rahman abd al-Rauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini. He shortened it to obscure his kinship with the notorious Nazi and Mufti of Jerusalem.[2]

Saddam Hussein was raised in the house of his uncle Khayrallah Tulfah, who was a leader in the Mufti's pro-Nazi coup in Iraq in May 1941. Both Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein were greatly influenced by the Mufti during their time in Cairo during the 1950s. Side-by-side comparison of "turnspeak" Many examples of "turnspeak" abound in today's news media. For example a article in a leading Western news service reported "The settlers are a roaming the west bank with guns and randomly shooting at Palestinian civilians... making Palestinians prisoners in their own villages", or another article that said "They [the settlers] are hunters... They go into jail through one door and out the other." An even more obvious example is Arafat's claims that Israel is stopping the peace process.


1."From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters, 1984

2.The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini was later the notorious Nazi who mixed Nazi propaganda and Islam. He was wanted for war crimes in Bosnia by Yugoslavia. His mix of militant propagandizing Islam was an inspiration for both Yasser Arafat and Saddam Husein: He was also a close relative of Yasser Arafat and grandfather of the current Temple Mount Mufti. "Arafat's actual name was Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini. He shortened it to obscure his kinship with the notorious Nazi and ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini." Howard M. Sachar, A HISTORY OF ISRAEL (New York: Knopf, 1976). The Bet Agron International Center in Jerusalem interviewed Arafat's brother and sister, who described the Mufti as a cousin (family member) with tremendous influence on young Yassir after the Mufti returned from Berlin to Cairo. Yasser Arafat himself keeps his exact lineage and birthplace secret. Saddam Hussein was raised in the house of his uncle Khayrallah Tulfah, who was a leader in the Mufti's pro-Nazi coup in Iraq in May 1941.

See also History of Fedayeen, PLO, Fatah, PFLP, PFLP-GC, DFLP, etc Militant Palestinian Groups and Yasser Arafat worthy successor to Haj Muhammad Amin al Husseini

[NOTE: This was published on www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/turnspeak.html The original article contains live links to additional material and a comparison of "what's said" and "what is". Read it by clicking here.]

Joseph E Katz is a Middle Eastern political and religious history analyst. He lives in Brooklyn, New York. Contact him at jkatz@eretzyisroel.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Stern, Daisy, March 31, 2008.

This was written by Maayana Miskin and was in the March 31, 2008 Arutz-Sheva http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125751

(IsraelNN.com) The Jabotinsky Heritage House in Tel Aviv recently completed a study on the psychological training given to IDF soldiers before the 2005 "Disengagement" and its effect on subsequent IDF operations. The psychological training given to soldiers had a serious impact on soldiers' performance in later conflicts, researchers found.

Dr. Gadi Eshel said the research team managed to collect a vast amount of material on the mental preparation for the eviction and the eviction itself. The material showed that the army put a great deal of effort into creating terms that would help soldiers to feel that they were doing the right thing, said researcher Ruthie Isakovich. Isakovich labeled the training given to soldiers to mentally prepare them to evict Jews "brainwashing."

NOTE: The original article embeds a video in which the researchers, Eshel and Isakovich, explain their research and the connection they found between the pre-Disengagement training and the army's difficulties during the Second Lebanon War.

Contact Daisy Stern by email at daisystern1@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, March 31, 2008.

This was written by Amir Taheri and it appeared March 29, 2008 as an Opinion Piece in the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120675195927473485.html Mr. Taheri's new book, "The Persian Night: Iran and the Khomeinist Revolution," will be published later this year by Encounter Books.

The American presidential election campaign took a bizarre theological turn recently when Barack Obama accused John McCain of not being able to distinguish Sunnis from Shiites.

The exchange started when Sen. McCain suggested that the Islamic Republic in Iran, a Shiite power, may be helping al Qaeda, a Sunni outfit, in its murderous campaign in Iraq and elsewhere. Basing its position on received wisdom, the Obama camp implied that Sunnis and Shiites, divided as they are by deep doctrinal differences, could not come together to fight the United States and its allies.

The truth is that Sunni and Shiite extremists have always been united in their hatred of the U.S., and in their desire to "bring it to destruction," in the words of Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar.

The majority of Muslims does not share that hatred and have no particular problem with the U.S. It is the country most visited by Muslim tourists and it attracts the largest number of Muslim students studying abroad.

But to understand the problem with extremists, it is important to set aside the Sunni-Shiite divide and focus on their common hatred of America. Theology is useless here. What we are dealing with is politics.

For Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, the slogan "Death to America" was as important as the traditional device of Islam "Allah Is The Greatest" –– hence his insistence that it be chanted at all public meetings and repeated after each session of the daily prayers. And to that end, Khomeinists have worked with anyone, including brother-enemy Sunnis or even Marxist atheists.

The suicide attacks that claimed the lives of over 300 Americans, including 241 Marines, in Lebanon in 1983, were joint operations of the Khomeinist Hezbollah and the Marxist Arab Socialist Party, which was linked to the Syrian intelligence services. The Syrian regime is Iran's closest ally, despite the fact that Iranian mullahs regard the Alawite minority that dominates it as heretics or worse. Today in Lebanon, Tehran's surrogate, Hezbollah, is in league with a Maronite Christian faction, led by ex-Gen. Michel Aoun, in opposition to a majority bloc that favors close ties with the U.S.

For more than a quarter century, Tehran has been host to the offices of more than three dozen terrorists organizations, from the Colombian FARC to the Palestinian Hamas and passing by half a dozen Trotskyite and Leninist outfits. It also finances many anti-American groups and parties of both extreme right and extreme left in Europe and the Americas. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has bestowed the Muslim title of "brother" on Cuba's Fidel Castro, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, Bolivia's Evo Morales and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega. Communist North Korea is the only country with which the Islamic Republic maintains close military-industrial ties and holds joint annual staff sessions.

George Ibrahim Abdallah, the Lebanese maverick who led a campaign of terror in Paris in the 1980s on behalf of Tehran, was a Christian. So was Anis Naqqache, who led several hit-teams sent to kill Iranian exile opposition leaders. For years, and until a recent change of policy, Tehran financed and offered shelter to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a Marxist movement fighting to overthrow the Turkish Republic. Why? Tehran's displeasure with Turkish membership of NATO and friendship with the U.S.

Yes, Mr. Obama might ask, but what about Sunni-Shiite cooperation?

The Islamic Republic has financed and armed the Afghan Sunni Hizb Islami (Islamic Party) since the 1990s. It's also financed the Front for Islamic Salvation (FIS), a Sunni political-terrorist outfit in Algeria between 1992 and 2005.

In 1993, a senior Iranian delegation, led by the then Islamic Parliament Speaker Ayatollah Mehdi Karrubi, attended the Arab-Muslim Popular Congress organized by Hassan al-Turabi, nicknamed "The Pope of Islamist Terror," in Khartoum. At the end of this anti-American jamboree a nine-man "Coordinating Committee" was announced. Karrubi was a member, along with such Sunni eminences as Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mr. Turabi and the Algerian Abdallah Jaballah. The fact that Karrubi was a Shiite mullah did not prevent him from sitting alongside Sunni sheikhs.

In 1996, a suicide attack claimed the lives of 19 American servicemen in Al Khobar, eastern Saudi Arabia. The operation was carried out by the Hezbollah in Hejaz, an Iranian-financed outfit, with the help of the Sunni militant group "Sword of the Peninsula."

In 2000, Sunni groups linked to al Qaeda killed 17 U.S. servicemen in a suicide attack on USS Cole off the coast of Yemen. This time, a Shiite militant group led by Sheikh al-Houti, Tehran's man in Yemen, played second fiddle in the operation.

In Central Asia's Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Tehran has for years supported two Sunni movements, the Rastakhiz Islami (Islamic Awakening) and Hizb Tahrir Islami (Islamic Liberation Party). In Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic, Tehran supports the Sunni Taleshi groups against the Azeri Shiite majority. The reason? The Taleshi Sunnis are pro-Russian and anti-American, while the Shiite Azeris are pro-American and anti-Russian.

There are no Palestinian Shiites, yet Tehran has become the principal source of funding for radical Palestinian Sunni groups, notably Hamas, Islamic Jihad and half a dozen leftist-atheist minigroups. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh refuses to pray alongside his Iranian hosts during his visits to Tehran. But when it comes to joining Khomeinist crowds in shouting "Death to America" he is in the forefront.

With Arab oil kingdoms no longer as generous as before, Iran has emerged as the chief source of funding for Hamas. The new Iranian budget, coming into effect on March 21, allocates over $2 billion to the promotion of "revolutionary causes." Much of the money will go to Hamas and the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah.

In Pakistan, the Iran-financed Shiite Tehrik Jaafari joined a coalition of Sunni parties to govern the Northwest Frontier Province, until they all suffered a crushing defeat at last month's parliamentary elections.

The fact that the Sunnis and Shiites in other provinces of Pakistan continued to kill each other did not prevent them from developing a joint, anti-U.S. strategy that included the revival of the Afghan Taliban and protection for the remnants of al Qaeda. Almost all self-styled "holy warriors" who go to Iraq on a mission of murder and mayhem are Sunnis. And, yet most pass through Syria, a country that, as already noted, is dominated by a sect with a militant anti-Sunni religious doctrine.

Next month, Tehran will host what is billed as "The Islamic Convergence Conference," bringing together hundreds of Shiite and Sunni militants from all over the world. The man in charge, Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Taskhiri, has described the goal of the gathering to be delivering "a punch in the face of the American Great Satan."

Still, Mr. Obama might ask: what about al Qaeda and Iran?

The 9/11 Commission report states that Tehran was in contact with al Qaeda at various levels before the 2001 attacks. Tehran has admitted the presence of al Qaeda figures in Iran on a number of occasions, and has arranged for the repatriation of at least 13 Saudi members in the past five years. The Bin Laden family tells us that at least one of Osama's sons, Sa'ad, has lived in Iran since 2002.

Reports from Iran claim that scores of Taliban leaders and several al Qaeda figures spend part of the year in a compound-style housing estate near the village of Dost Muhammad on the Iranian frontier with Afghanistan. One way to verify these claims is to allow the world media access to the area. But Tehran has declared large segments of eastern Iran a "no-go" area, even for its own state-owned media.

In short, the claim that al Qaeda and the Khomeinists, not to mention other terrorist groups operating in the name of Islam, would not work together simply because they have theological differences is both naive and dangerous.

Messrs. McCain and Obama do not need to know about doctrinal differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. The problem they face is not theological but political. All they need to know is that there are deadly and determined groups dedicated to destruction of the U.S. in the name of a perverted version of Islam, and that they need to be resisted, fought and ultimately defeated.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, March 31, 2008.

Terrorists deploy new booby-traps: Bombs meant to explode in soldiers' hands hidden in books, canteens, shampoo bottles. IDF special task force: 'There is no room for error'

This was written by Yossi Yehoshua and it was published in YNET news

'Yahalom', a special task force of the Engineering Corps, is battling a revolution in the world of terrorism these days. A few months ago a unit of troops from the force was doing a routine scan of a seemingly ordinary tunnel dug by Hamas militants near the Karni Crossing in Gaza, when they discovered that the hen-house blocking the entrance was actually a ticking time bomb.

This is one of the many examples of sophisticated terrorist plots the task force has come in contact with lately, in which Palestinians hid bombs inside of mundane objects. Recently Yahalom soldiers have seen booby-trapped books, egg trays, canteens, and even baby shampoo bottles. On the eve of perhaps yet another operation in Gaza, this is worrying news for the IDF.

Deputy commander of the force, Major Eran Davidi, warned that the plots' ingenuity lies in setting the bombs to respond to touch. Thus, if an IDF soldier opens the booby-trapped book or picks up the army-issue canteen from the ground, the bomb explodes in his hands.

Another way terrorists have chosen to disguise bombs is inside of plastic rocks. The troops nicknamed these faux rocks skirts, because they must be lifted in order to recognize the trap. "Recognizing a 'skirt' in open territory full of rocks that all look exactly the same is a real mission impossible," Davidi remarked.

Dealing with the threat well

The task force distinguishes between operations performed in Gaza and those performed in other territories, such as the north of Israel. Davidi explained that the controlled detonation of bombs should ideally be performed in open territory, but in Gaza the heavy population makes controlled detonation very difficult. "The operations almost require tweezers," he said.

The good news is that during the last three years Yahalom has been recognized as deserving of more funds, and new technology has been made available to the force. For example, recently they received a new light-weight robot that has the added bonus of a deployment arm. Use of the robot quickly replaced the presence of soldiers in dangerous areas, such as tunnels and other enclosed spaces.

Even so, the IDF continues to invest in the competence of the Yahalom troops. "It is crucial that they stay on their toes. There is no room for error," said Davidi.

"The enemy has had a few successes, but when compared to the amount of failures they point to an overall conclusion, that the IDF is managing to deal with the threat quite well."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Simon McIlwaine, March 31, 2008.

This article was written by Ami Isseroff and comes from his March 25, 2008 article on the ZioNation-Zionism and Israel website http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000515.html

Amnesty International is sending out letters to the faithful asking them to protest an Israeli crime: Israel is denying water and electricity to Arab Palestinians, destroying their villages that have existed since time immemorial and driving them off their land -- another Nakba. If it were true it would be truly frightening and shameful. From what I can learn, this circular letter ought to be listed in Snopes and Urban legends.

The letter reads:

"Dear Ehud Olmert –– Prime Minister,

I am concerned to learn that house demolitions are continuing and that currently the residents of Humsa and Hadidiya face the demolition of their homes and expulsion from their area. I call for the demolition and expulsion orders to be rescinded, for harassment to end, and for confiscated property to be returned.

Another grave concern is the restrictions placed on the residents living in the area and the failure to be allowed access to essential resources such as water and electricity. I urge you to remove any hindrance to the residents' access to water, electricity and other basics needed to survive. Please allow the Palestinian villagers in the Jordan Valley to move freely within the Jordan Valley, and between the valley and the rest of the West Bank.

I ask that you impose a moratorium on house demolitions and forced evictions in the occupied West Bank until the law is amended to bring it into line with international standards.

Finally, I would also like to take this opportunity to urge you to remove the responsibility for planning and building regulations in the Jordan Valley and elsewhere in the Occupied Palestinian Territories from the Israeli military authorities and to transfer it solely to the local Palestinian communities.

Many thanks for your attention to this serious matter. I look forward to receiving your response."

Note that this supposed humanitarian protest has included a number of political demands that add up to "end the occupation now, unconditionally." The letter is not intended to really influence PM Olmert, who is no doubt informed about the actual nature of activities in the Jordan valley. However it does influence the Amnesty International recipients and donors who get the letter. Any reasonable person would infer from the letter, that Israel is uprooting thousands of Arab Palestinians from a verdant paradise where they have lived since the time of Goliath, tending their flocks like the patriarchs of old. Evil Zionists driving Caterpillar bulldozers demolished the picturesque stone houses of the Palestinian Arabs, which have stood for hundreds, maybe thousands of years in Filastin. Fat Nazi-like IDF officers cutting the electric wires and settler fanatics poisoning the wells. Veritably a second Nakba. Worse than the Holocaust without a doubt.

Here is a picture of the "verdant paradise" and the great metropolises that Israel is destroying, from a pro-Palestinian source, POICA:

Verdant Arab Palestinian village "destroyed by Israel"
(source: poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=1123 )

A picture is worth 10,000 words. The light brown stuff is called sand. This type of region is generally called desert. The villages that have stood from time immemorial turn out to be tents and tar paper and sheet metal shacks. This is freely admitted by the POICA:

...the local people who confirmed that all the dwellings are of primitive nature built of animal hair tents and barracks which are very easy to dismantle at any time....

The population of Al Hadidiya and Humsa derived from the families of Basharat and Bani Odeh from Tamun village to the east of Tubas city. Before the occupation of 1967, a portion of Tamun people moved to settle in a place called Al Hadidiya in the Buqei'a valley which is about 10 km to the eat of Tubas, and began to rear animal due to the availability of rich soil, pastures and water...

...the supreme court issued a decision confining them to stay in 91 dunums which are un enough for the livelihood of their cattle whose number is estimated at 10000. [English errors reproduced as in the original]

POICA's map shows that the real name of Humsa is Khirbet Humsa, which means ruin of Humsa –– a village that was abandoned a very long time ago. Some of the people in question are from the Bani Odeh "family." Bani Odeh is probably the name of a Bedouin tribe.

Amnesty International tells us, under the scare headline, "Evictions crisis deepens for Palestinian villagers"
(source: amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/Evictions-crisis-deepens-for- Palestinian-villagers-20070820") More than 100 villagers, most of them children, risk losing their homes and being forced out of the area."(emphasis added) That is the entire crisis that demands world attention, and requires that the Israeli government immediately end the occupation. "More than 100" people have violated a court order and pitched tents in the desert, and they "risk" losing their homes. Well yes, if you pitch your tent on public land, you are trespassing, and and you risk losing your home, if home is where the tent is. But one suspects that these people have adequate permanent housing in town. Imagine if you pitched your tent in Yucca flats, and the evil US Army arrived and said, "You can't stay here, it's a closed military area." You call amnesty, and next thing you know Amnesty International and the United Nations are condemning the US government and demanding that they stop the "house demolitions," and run water pipes and electric lines to your house.

It is interesting that this story has gotten little mention in the Israeli press. There are no articles presenting the Israeli point of view and no mention of the court decisions. There is only one article by Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz
(Source: haaretz.com/hasen/spages/903676.html) that paints the same fictitious atrocity story that Amnesty International does, with a bit of additional embroidery and a small "improvement." Levy insists that these are not "Bedouin" but "Palestinians:

In the summer everyone is together; in the winter the women and children are in Tamun and the men remain with the flocks.

We sit in the shade of used flour sacks stretched between wooden poles, a substitute for the tents that were destroyed. The women crowd together on the ground behind a curtain made from another sack of flour. There is no electricity, no water, no sewer, no school. Nothing. Despite their lifestyle, these people are not Bedouin but rather Palestinian shepherds –– even if the documents of the omniscient Civil Administration sometimes indicate otherwise. Abu Saker says his father was born here, too. For decades they have been shepherds in these deserted areas.

How does Levy decide they are not Bedouin? It is not Israeli documents, but anti-Israeli articles that claim they are Bedouin. They live as Bedouin live. Somehow it is supposed to be the fault of the Israeli government that there is no water, no sewage and no electricity in the middle of the desert. Does illegal "possession" for decades grant right of ownership?

But the most important revelation of Gideon Levy is that this is just a summer encampment of people who live in Tamun, and decided to expropriate some land for their flocks. If some Jerusalemites erect tents in a park, is that OK because they lived in the area for decades? If I decide to set up a sheep farm in Arizona, is the US government obliged to supply water and sewage and electricity?

Of course, the argument that Levy and others are trying to make is that these are just "temporary" encampments. But if the "Palestinians" (Bedouin or otherwise) had built stone houses there, would Amnesty International or Gideon Levy or POICA or the UN (which also publicized this hoax) be any less upset?

If settlers put up an outpost next to Efrat or Ariel, will Gideon Levy say that they have a right to be there, because they have been "in the area" for decades? Will Amnesty international uphold the right of Palestinian Jews to these illegal outposts? Will they ask people to petition Ehud Olmert to stop destroying the settlements?

It must take a special mentality for Amnesty International donors to pay money to an organization in order for them to receive hoax letters from that organization, which they are asked to forward to the Israeli government. I get my hoax letters for free and put them in the deleted folder. But if someone wants to pay for such letters, I will gladly supply all they want. In Britain they stopped teaching the Holocaust, Germany is boycotting Israel, the French are encouraging anti-Semitism, Barak Obama is a Muslim, Bill Gates is giving away $200 to each person who forwards the e-mail and this inexpensive preparation will make any 80 year old great grandmother look like Beyonce. (I should not have to add that these are all hoaxes and not true –– but based on some responses I got, it seems I need to add it. –– A.I.)

If you want to contact Amnesty International about their hoax letter, you can do at the addresses listed in this contact form (or send email through the form) AI Contact on http://www.amnesty.org.

Remember the one hundred people in their summer tents the next time you read about Israeli "atrocities" –– "expropriation," "house demolitions," and "war crimes" from a "reliable" source like Amnesty International or Ha'aretz newspaper.

Simon McIlwaine is with Anglican Friends of Israel (www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com). Contact him at Simon.McIlwaine@ormerods.co.uk

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, March 31, 2008.
It is about time people began to push back. However once you begin to push back, you can not turn back. The next encounter will deliberately be violent to test the extent of people's resolve and how far they are willing to fight. Those organizing this resistance effort, please take that into account. If you are prepared to meet violence with violence and go beyond civil disobedience to active rebellion, fine. Just understand exactly what you are doing. Furthermore, please be sure you are in the front of the group and not in the back being interviewed by CNN in preparation for your next speaking tour. Leading people into a dangerous situation is an enormous responsibility.

This news item is called "Police Retreat From Har Bracha" and it comes from today's Arutz-Sheva

Stop complaining and fight back!
Here's how:

(IsraelNN.com) The Police force and Civil Administration members have retreated from Har Bracha after worries that clashes with hundreds of protesters could break out. Police claimed they retreated in order to try and restore calm.

The police planned to halt the placement of new caravan homes in the community on Monday morning. The decision is part of the Olmert administration's policy to not allow any new buildings in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 31, 2008.


An Israeli built his own rocket. His announcement alerted police, who confiscated it. This gave him the opportunity to advise other Israelis to make their own and discourage Gazans from firing at Israel (Prof. Steven Plaut, 3/5).


Motherhood. Wonderful? It isn't the same everywhere. Western mothers want their children to become distinguished professionals and benefactor of mankind. Many Muslim mothers in the P.A. want their sons to become suicide bombers. (Their notion of honor seems paramount, and "martyrs" honor their families and would lead the good life after death. Their families would be paid off.)

International law bans such "martyrdom" by differentiating between combatants and civilians, who may not deliberately be attacked. Islamists who turn civilians into bombs, and who use human shields, don't follow those rules. They exploit their civilian appearance to kill civilians. If law enforcement personnel hesitate to shoot terrorists, they and civilians may get killed. Islamic terrorists make law enforcement more likely to shoot innocent civilians by mistake, and then they blame the law enforcement officials. The officials don't deserve the blame, but not everyone understands that.

We must consider those who promote suicide bombing as terrorists –– criminals. This would include preachers of the death cult, people who lend or rent their houses for firing rockets (or smuggling arms), civilians who willingly become human shields. Then there are those who donate money for terrorism. We need new rules of warfare to allow us to fight effectively against those who don't follow the old rules (Alan Dershowitz in Plaut, 3/5).

Why let barbarians abuse our humanitarianism to murder us? The US is somewhat sensible about this. Israel is particularly unwise about this, while praising itself for being moral. I think its government is immoral to allow its people to be murdered. I disapprove of journalists and critics of Pres. Bush who seize upon inadvertent civilian casualties as indicators of US brutality. The fact that the casualties are low should still their criticism. They simply call those casualties high, though they pale by comparison with earlier wars in my lifetime.


Internet sites tried to censor the film, but millions saw it and the UNO immediately condemned what, as it is described, was an accurate depiction. There were films of Islamist violence and the Islamists quoting Koranic authorization. Arutz-7 (3/28) noted that there were no riots. But agitators need time to rile up crowds.


He said that if the Palestinian Arabs want to qualify for their "long overdue" state west of the Jordan R., they should eradicate terrorism. Terrorism not only is wrongful, he explained, but it impedes the "legitimate hopes and aspirations of the Palestinian people. He encouraged "the advocates of peace and reconciliation" (NY Sun, 3/25).

What "legitimate hopes and aspirations of the Palestinian people?" They are not a nationality, but pretend to be, in order to claim Jewish territory. Their aspiration is to take Israel away from the Jewish people and murder them. Not legitimate! I wonder whether Cheney knows that there already is a Palestinian Arab state –– Jordan –– and it is several times the size of Israel.

What Muslim Arab "advocates of peace and reconciliation?" If there are any, they don't speak up. He doesn't name them. If named, they would be assassinated. Then they lack power. Who is supposed to eradicate terrorism? Abbas, who said he'd resume the "armed struggle," i.e., terrorism (not that he ever abandoned it, and his forces commit terrorism), if he doesn't get what he wants by negotiation. Negotiation and terrorism both are means to the same end, Islamic triumph over infidels, in this case, Israel.

Why don't they eradicate terrorism, after all these years? Simple. It's how they fight, and it's what they deem legitimate, doesn't he know? Why "overdue" or even due? Because they long have been demanding that step towards the conquest of Israel? What have they done to deserve anything but mass-imprisonment? If he took 9/11 seriously, he would not support jihadists.

Terrorism doesn't just impede formation of another Palestinian Arab state. It also hastens it. It is in response to terrorism that appeasement-minded people urge statehood for the terrorists.

I wonder whether Cheney knows that the P.A. is anti-American and that its terrorist organizations are allied with Iran.


Abbas said he will not sign a final peace agreement with Israel unless it releases all Palestinian Arab prisoners (IMRA, 3/9).

Israel is holding thousands of terrorists in prison, convicted of murder or attempt/conspiracy to murder. They did not fight by the rules of warfare, and therefore are not prisoners of war but the worst of criminals. His advocacy of their release supports their terrorism. He has called them heroes.


Investigation found that the murderer of the yeshiva students was taking orders from Hizbullah (IMRA, 3/9). Ha0mas said that hundreds of its troops were trained by Iran and that more are in process of being trained (IMRA, 3/10).

PM Olmert has boasted that his war on Hizbullah (which ended inconclusively) deters Hizbullah from attacking Israel. In any case, Hizbullah has found another way. Its way is to work with Arabs in Israel. It recruited one from Jerusalem whose non-citizen residents are allowed to travel freely throughout Israel.

Israeli Arab agitation, terrorism, and grip on the country keeps expanding.

I think it is a serious mistake to allow a couple of hundred thousand enemy citizens to live in the capital of Israel, and to allow more than a million Arab Muslims to live in the country. Isn't that an obvious security problem?


They arrested ten who attacked Israeli cars (IMRA, 3/9).

I report this, because often Israel does not arrest Arabs for attacking Jews and sometimes arrest Jews for resisting attack.


Years ago I reported that half the 3.5 million people of Muslim Mauritania were slaves. The NY Sun of 3/24 reports that half a million are slaves.


Just as it seemed that PM Olmert had run out of excuses for not invading Gaza and destroying Hamas, Sec. Rice brought an Egyptian formula for a truce. Although the week before, the Cabinet of Israel had voted to maintain pressure on Hamas, now the government has restrained the IDF, while Hamas has held off on most rocket attacks. The agreement is informal (relayed indirectly by Rice). The agreement does not advance the Cabinet's goals. Indeed, it gives Hamas latitude to accumulate more rockets for a greater, future bombardment.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, March 31, 2008.

I am intimately surrounded by enemy propaganda and I've only myself to blame. For example, I have been reading Publishers Weekly (PW) for a very long time. I don't have to but I won't give it up. Yes, I have noted the leftward drift of their reviews but, like the New York Times, whose editors and book reviewers have drifted similarly left-ward, PW remains a "must" for all those who want to read reviews of upcoming book titles and who want to know what publishing deals are in the works.

In their March 10th issue (I am behind this month), there is an image on page 66 and a glowing review on page 74. The photograph is titled "Palestinians waiting to be processed at an Israeli checkpoint, West Bank." Yes, another image, another work. The book is titled Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation. The anonymous reviewer finds the book "urgent," and focuses on how many Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli military operations-as if Israelis planned to kill the children.

This image, this idea, this reality has been burned into Western and Eastern brains. The Chinese Occupation of Tibet, the Sudanese genocide, the thousands of Muslim on Muslim atrocities and Islamist acts of terrorism all pale by comparison. The "Israeli checkpoints" was an accusation hurled at me when I spoke at Barnard in 2003. As I described the features of Islamic gender and religious apartheid, (honor killings, arranged marriage, polygamy, forced veiling, female genital mutilation, etc.) the assembled feminist crowd kept yelling at me to "admit" or to "focus on" the checkpoints. No matter what I said, they shouted back: "What about the humiliation at the checkpoints?"

They were very noisy for "sleepwalkers."

Here is how one of Doris Lessing's characters in the novel The Four Gated City viewed others going about their daily lives:

"They all looked half drugged or half asleep, dull, as if the creatures had been hypnotized or poisoned as if they were not conscious of their existence here, were somewhere else. But the most frightening thing about them was this: that they walked and moved and went about their lives in a condition of sleepwalking: they were not aware of themselves, of other people, of what went on around them, they were essentially isolated, shut in."

Ah, yes. But today, our "sleepwalkers" have more of an edge. If anyone interrupts their "sleepwalking" they angrily turn on them, call them "racists," "alarmists," "provocateurs."

Dutch politicians blame and wish to hold only Geert Wilders liable in case his film, "Fitna," leads to riots or to any boycotts of Dutch goods. They do not condemn Muslim acts of violence in the name of Islam. Left European groups blame the Danish cartoons and Ayaan Hirsi Ali for unecessarily "provoking" Muslim rage and endangering both Holland and Denmark.

Those Americans who are voting for Obama honestly hope that his shadow, blended Christian-Muslim and person-of-color identity will usher in a diplomatic love affair between Obama's America and the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda. Those Americans who are (Just Make My Day) waiting to vote for McCain, believe that it is World War Two again and that a John Wayne war hero will win the day for America and the West. I am no longer sure what Hilary Clintons' people dare to fantasize,

All attempts to explain the precise way in which Islam is different from other religions-that it is not just a religion but is, rather, a political ideology or at least, it is not only a religion-falls on absolutely deaf ears. Document the genocidal history of Muslims towards non-Muslims (and towards each other); document Islamic gender apartheid and the tragic fate of Muslim women-and it is as if nothing has been said. More: It is as if one has spoken out of turn, with malice aforethought.

In response to the Islamist death-eaters of today, the "sleepwalkers" say: "But we have also had Crusaders, (but they were trying to take back Christian lands from Arab Muslim invaders-but why quibble?), a Christian Inquisition, an American genocidal extermination of native-Indians, ancient Israel was commanded to murder all the pagans in the Holy Land, (but they did not do so-again, why quibble), etc." Others say: "America is the New Crusader, 9/11 was our own fault-hey, that's what Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said and it is deemed uncivilized, unfair, boring, and racist to harp upon this.

One might as well howl right into the wind.

Let me try to say this in World War Two terms one more time. But please remember that we live in far more dangerous times.

The rise of Islamist suicide terrorism and Big Lie propaganda is equivalent to Hitler's rise. At the end of the day, it did not matter that individual Germans were very polite, or personally peaceful, or that they loved music. Their refusal to stop Hitler led to eleven million deaths and great suffering.

But this knowledge demands that one gird up one's loins and Do Something, even something educational and non-violent. And our "sleepwalkers" have been too heavily propagandized or are too busy dreaming of peace.

And I have a nasty virus and face surgery and can but write this fevered column, my daily note-in-a-bottle, meant for you.

Dr. Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She is an author and lecturer and co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in Psychology (1969). Visit her website at

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, March 31, 2008.

People make a big mistake. They think that the evacuation from Gaza was in order to advance the "peace process" –– and that the Jewish settlers in Gush Katif/Gaza just happened to get hurt in the process. Wrong. The purpose of the Gush Katif/Gaza evacuation was to hurt the settlers –– and the "peace process" was just an excuse.

People think that putative attempts by the world, abetted by Quisling-style Israeli government to make Judea and Samaria Judenrein (Jew-free), is in order to advance the "peace process". Wrong again. Their goal is to make Judea, Samaria (and Jerusalem and Tel Aviv) Judenrein. The "peace process" is just a flimsy excuse.

We have all been imagining that the "peace process" was real. Yet, we couldn't understand how any moderately rational individual would be so stupid, or so delusional, to imagine that anybody at all on the Muslim-Arab/Palestinian side wanted to make peace. The insanity of it all was driving people to literally "pull their hair out" in frustration.

You see, they really weren't all that dumb, or locked up in their own fantasy world. They all know that this so-called "peace process" has absolutely no chance whatsoever. They know that it will leave what is left of Israel in a vulnerable position. That is exactly what they want! Ever hear the expression: "Crazy like a fox"?

What did you think, that anti-Semitism had disappeared? They want to destroy the Jewish people and the Jewish Land because we carry the G-d given message of morality to the world. They don't want to be moral.

So what should we do? Taking on the whole world is not an easy thing. We see how the nations of the world failed to stop the Holocaust –– some even assisted. They didn't even let fleeing refugees in. We've tried rallies and reason –– they didn't seem to have much of an effect.

There is one hope. It takes a bit of effort. If we simply return to following G-d, completely –– He has offered to do miracles for us. Or we can keep trying to do things "our" way.

Most of the world will actually be destroyed or damaged –– largely for the sin of collaborating to harm G-d's Chosen People and for trying to silence G-d's messengers.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 30, 2008.

This was written by Daphna Berman and it appeared in Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/ PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=969459

Recent success by controversial religious group Jehovah's Witnesses to bring in local Israelis has anti-missionary activists accusing the group of using devious recruitment methods. The Witnesses, as they are known, have had a presence here since the state's founding but say their active missionary work –– an obligation for members –– has gained traction in recent years, bringing in several hundred additional members. They now number an estimated 2,500 in Israel.

Missionary work is not illegal here, though the law forbids proselytizing to minors or proselytizing with promises of financial or material gain. Still, missionary attempts rile up many Israeli Jews. Last week, a teenager from Ariel whose family is part of the city's small Messianic Jewish community was seriously injured after a bomb, disguised as a Purim package, went off in his apartment. The incident marks what some onlookers are calling an escalation in tension between religious groups that proselytize and the ultra-Orthodox Jews who actively oppose them. Meir Cohen, coordinator of the anti-missionary department at Yad L'Achim, says his ultra-Orthodox organization receives about a dozen calls a day from people complaining about Jehovah's Witnesses who come to their door.

Accusing the Witnesses of targeting society's weaker elements, including new immigrants, the poor and the handicapped, critics blast what they call the group's devious recruitment methods. "They've mapped out all of Israeli society and then target segments that don't get attention elsewhere," said Cohen. "They introduce themselves, they smile, they are nice and they are successful. They cynically abuse people in distress and like other cults in Israel are growing." Cohen asserted they've actively proselytized in group homes for the deaf-mute, adding, "Jehovah's Witnesses, messianic Jews, scientologists all thrive here because there is no public awareness to counter them."

"They target the less educated people and not the university professors," said Ruth Cohen, a former member who returned to Judaism in 2002. "In Tel Aviv, they go building to building, but in Jerusalem, they are more careful because they are terrified of the ultra-Orthodox. They target Russians, foreign workers and Arabs –– but not Muslims, because that is considered too dangerous."

David Namer, head of the group's non-profit organization, countered in a recent interview that most of its members are Israeli and that their movement cuts across ethnic and socioeconomic lines –– rejecting claims of honing in on the weak. "We go to Ramat Aviv," added spokesperson Eran Katri, referring to the affluent north Tel Aviv neighborhood. Both representatives denied charges their movement is a cult.

The movement –– called "the Chabad of the Christian world" by Cohen –– has a national office off the Nachalat Binyamin pedestrian mall in Tel Aviv, but claims to have a presence in most major cities, including Haifa, Beer Sheva, Jerusalem and Ashdod.

The work of Jehovah's Witnesses is hardly new to Israelis who have spent significant time abroad. In the U.S., home to the movement's international headquarters, they have about one million active members who go door to door to spread their message. Here, small numbers make their evangelizing less noticeable. Methods, however, are similar: believers canvass neighborhoods, stand on street corners and approach strangers on places like the Tel Aviv beach promenade. "We believe that sharing our faith is an obligation," Katri said. "We spread a message and if someone becomes a Jehovah's Witness, it is his choice." According to Jehovah's Witnesses officials, some 1,300 active members in Israel engage in spreading the message. "We are seeing an increase in the numbers of people who come to us," said Namer. "But relatively speaking, we are still quite small."

The group, which is active in some 230 countries, is known for their refusal to take blood infusions as well as for their persecution during World War II by the Nazis. Claiming to have nearly 7,000,000 practicing members, they are especially controversial for the way they treat those who leave the flock. A Jehovah's Witness who behaves in a way that the community deems immoral is completely excommunicated, or "disfellowshipped," in the parlance of the congregation –– an experience Ruth Cohen had to live through.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider themselves part of Christianity –– which they see as idolatrous –– despite their belief in Jesus as the messiah. They also do not accept the Trinity or use the cross as a religious symbol. Members of the group dress modestly and meet some three times a week at their local "Kingdom Halls" to worship, study, pray and sing. They say they are firm adherents of the Bible. Namer referenced verses from Genesis and Leviticus during the interview to prove a point.

"To be a Witness doesn't just mean to be a believer," explained Penina Taylor, director of the Jerusalem offices of Jews for Judaism, an international anti-missionary group. "Their raison d'etre is to share their faith." Ruth Cohen, who was a member for 30 years, believes that "Jews don't realize how serious the threat is and how much money and effort is being put into missionizing here."

Namer, for his part, rejects criticism of the group. "It's a shame that [these people] don't respect other people's beliefs," he said.

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Nathan, March 30, 2008.

This is by Mort Zuckerman, editor-in-chief and publisher of U.S. News and World Report.

The world applauded when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, forcibly removing Jewish settlers. At last, the Palestinians were free to show how they could build their own society.

But what did they do with their freedom? They elected the terrorist organization Hamas in 2006. First Fatah and now Hamas have rained 4,000 rockets on Israel, killed 24, and wounded 620 –– the equivalent of killing 1,200 Americans and wounding 31,000. The citizens of Sderot and Ashkelon have suffered a collective trauma; children fear that when parents leave for work, they will never see them again.

And what does the world do?

It criticizes Israel –– Israel! –– for a "disproportionate" response. Israel is discriminating in trying to defend its people. It attacks Gaza's rocket launchers, weapons factories, and terrorists, all hidden in civilian areas.

What is a proportionate response? None at all, it seems.

Hamas kills indiscriminately. It makes no distinction between civilians and combatants. But it is Israel that earns the opprobrium. The moral equivalency was evident in a New York Times headline: "Hamas and Israelis Trade Attacks, Killing at Least Nine." Nor did TV broadcast pictures of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza celebrating the news that eight teenagers had been shot dead and many more injured in the library of a Jewish religious school in Jerusalem.

Would Paris, London, Bonn, or New York sit back quietly if terrorists attacked from sanctuaries somewhere just off their borders? Silent voices. Where is the world's outrage against these Palestinian war crimes? Twelve resolutions have passed the United Nations Human Rights Council on the conflict, but not one has made even a passing reference to the terrorism against Israel.

Where is the appreciation that while under attack, Israel has continued to supply its enemies with electricity and with 2,500 tons of food and medicines every day? Last year, 14,000 Gazan Palestinians were treated in Israeli medical facilities.

But Palestinians continue to get away with their confidence trick of persuading the world that they are the victims. The death of every Arab woman and child is a propaganda victory for Hamas, so it uses women and children as human shields and then exaggerates the casualties. The distortion foisted on the world is manifest in the celebrated case of the death of Mohammed al-Dura, who was alleged to have been shot by the Israelis in Gaza on the first day of the intifada. Now an independent French ballistic expert reports that he could not have died from Israeli gunfire. The technical analysis shows the shots could have come only from Palestinian positions.

And what of the Palestinian leader supposed to be leading the peace effort? Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas says, "What is happening now in Gaza is more than a Holocaust." Absurd? This from the "peacemaker" whose doctoral dissertation included the theory that European Zionists conspired with the Nazis to push for the Holocaust so that it could ultimately result in the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. According to Abbas's writings, 6 million Jews were not sent to the gas chambers to be killed but were among corpses cremated for sanitation reasons.

Some suggest Israel should deal with Hamas; there is talk of Egypt negotiating a truce. But why negotiate with an enemy dedicated to Israel's destruction? Recognition of Hamas would prove that terrorism, not diplomacy, is the way to gain Israeli concessions –– not to speak of international support –– and would strengthen Hamas in the West Bank. Any truce would protect the smuggling of arms and munitions until Hamas can attack again, with missiles that can reach Tel Aviv.

This current turmoil is a direct outcome of Bush administration misjudgments. We forced the Israelis and the Palestinians to include Hamas in the 2006 election. Later, we caused the removal of Israeli control of the Philadelphi road, a crucial barrier in the protection against the smuggling of arms, insisting it be left to the Palestinians under Egyptian and European supervision. Israeli protests that foreign troops would not stop either terrorists or arms from making their way into Gaza went unheeded.

America has an extra moral obligation to defuse this crisis. We should pressure Egypt by both political and economic means to stop the smuggling. Hamas must be contained. In the meantime, we have a war of attrition with Hamas determined to show Fatah's Abbas that terrorism is the only path. In the process, Hamas has made a mockery of President Bush and the Annapolis process. It has made it clear in blood that it will not permit Abbas to conduct real diplomatic negotiations.

The entire Arab world watches to see if Israel can find can find a way to deter Hamas –– or if terrorism, with the acquiescence of the hand-wringers, can win. Contact Dave Nathan at DaveNathan@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sergio Tessa (HaDaR), March 30, 2008.

This was written by Eliav Bar-Hai. He has a degree in International Relations from UCLA, is a 30-year resident of YESHA and the Golan; and works in high tech manufacturing. It appeared March 28, 2008 in Arutz-Sheva

Existential wars have only military solutions.

Sixty-three years ago, the Allied air forces bombed the German city of Dresden into oblivion, accelerating the final defeat of the Nazi regime and bringing a rapid end to the Second World War just four months later. Today's Islamofascist Jihad is gaining ground against the non-Islamic world and the Islamists are on the threshold of obtaining nuclear weapons. The failure of the West, including the USA, Europe and Israel, to recognize and deal seriously with this existential threat could have catastrophic ramifications for the future of mankind. It is therefore educationally imperative to review the concluding events of World War II and thus gain a better perspective of how fascist national cults have been successfully dealt with in the past.

By Spring of 1945, the war in Europe and Asia against the fascists had been won militarily, yet the two primary Axis powers were still defiant and determined to fight to the end, in the hope of causing the maximum number of American and British casualties. The large task that remained for the Allies was the invasion and occupation of Germany and Japan. To this end, the US and Great Britain intensified their aerial bombardment of Germany in preparation for the final assault. The allies decided to "upgrade" their tactics to achieve the maximum psychological impact on the enemy, to teach him the folly of further resistance. This new campaign reached its peak in a massive bombardment of the city of Dresden on the night of February 13, 1945. The RAF dispatched some 200 heavily-laden aircraft during the night that were followed the next day by 400 bombers of the US 8th Air Force, followed by three more waves of bombings in March and April.

The aircraft dropped incendiary bombs on one of Europe's oldest and most beautiful architectural monuments, built from wood to a large extent, and succeeded in obliterating virtually the entire city. Some 100,000 German civilians were incinerated (some estimates range as high as 135,000) –– as many people as were killed in the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima six months later. Dresden had no military installations or strategic value other than being a communications center. The primary purpose of the bombing was to assist the advance of the Red Army and to demoralize the German population.

The "success" of the attack on Dresden inspired a change of tactics on the Japanese front, as well. Instead of high altitude bombing runs in daylight that caused little damage, low-level night-time napalm strikes were initiated with impressive results. The first, on the night of March 9-10, destroyed 25% of Tokyo's flimsy wood buildings, killing more than 80,000 people –– twice the number killed in Nagasaki in the second atomic bomb attack –– and made more than one million homeless. Similar raids followed against Nagoya, Kobe, Osaka and Yokohama.

This phenomenal carnage was not "collateral damage" (a euphemism for inadvertent killing of civilians), but targeted mass annihilation of civilian populations for its morale-weakening contribution to a military effort. The ultimate political goal of the above military effort was to destroy Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan –– two nations whose organized national purpose, supported by their civilian populations, was willful imperialism by force and large-scale killing.

What is the significance of these last-century events for Israel and the West in the context of the ongoing ruthless Islamic war against "global non-belief" (a Wahabi Islamic term for all non-Muslims)?

First, the Allies in World War II recognized that total existential war is fought between peoples or nations. This is decidedly different from today's politically correct and militarily impotent "War On Terror." The German and Japanese people wholeheartedly supported an aggressive, genocidal war effort and willingly sent their sons and husbands to fight and butcher in the name of Emperor and Fuhrer. The British lost 93,000 civilians in German air raids, the Chinese are estimated to have lost 20 million at the hands of the Japanese, the Russians suffered five million civilians killed, and the Jewish people suffered six million murdered in history's worst ethnic genocide.

Israel and the USA are not facing a band of independent terrorists, but rather a national and religious movement supported by an international grouping of Islamofascist societies. This same jihadist warfare is being practiced by non-Arab converts to Islam in the US, Britain, Holland and other non-Arab, non-Muslim countries. These terrorists are not poor, downtrodden "desperate victims of occupation who have no other choice," as many in the Western press portray suicide murderers. Non-Arab converts in America who go out and shoot passersby because they are not Muslim or try to blow up an airliner with explosives in their shoes have joined the same jihadist Satanic cult that has declared war on the non-Islamic world.

Second, the Allies in World War II ultimately realized –– in contrast to another modern mantra: "There is no military solution –– only a political solution" –– that existential wars have only military solutions, which dictate the political reshuffling that follows. In the wake of the "political solutions" early on in Hitler's methodical push to take over Europe, which strengthened Germany with Austria, the Sudetenland and Czechoslavakia, and Japan with southeast Asia, the Allies belatedly focused on military victory.

When treated to a taste of their own tactics, and crushed with overwhelming force, both the Nazi and Japanese fascist regimes disintegrated, as did their popular national support. The defeat of the fascists in World War II was so complete that there was virtually no violent resistance in Germany and Japan from the end of the war until this day, even though the US maintains large military forces in both countries.

Inadvertent civilian casualties will result from military action –– that is the price the Palestinian population must pay for supporting a war of genocide against the state of Israel. The reluctance by Israel to use force and the recurring one-sided retreat from territory (Oslo Accord retreats in the mid-1990s; the flight from Lebanon in May 2000; the destruction of all Jewish presence in Gush Katif and northern Samaria; the promise by Ehud Olmert of more retreats to come; the hesitancy to use force to stop the ongoing rocket and missile attacks against Sderot and Ashkelon) are an open admission of defeat in Islamic eyes.

The immediate result of Israel's head-long flight from Lebanon in May 2000 was the Palestinians' war on Israel launched four months later and now in its eighth year. And Israel's decline is encouraging increasing numbers of Israeli Arabs and Druze citizens to participate in terrorist activities against the state, as they perceive a shifting of power and fluctuating long-term interests.

Over 1,600 Israeli citizens have been murdered in the 10 years since the Oslo Accords were signed. Open warfare has been conducted by the Palestinians in the past eight years, with 1,200 victims on the Israeli side (compared with 679 casualties in the full-scale Six Day War against three regular armies). This is a long-term national and religious struggle that will either be won or lost; there will be no middle ground. And this war is not only Israel's, but of the West as a whole; the eyes of Islam are watching, from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Iran. The Islamic jihad in all of its forms is measuring Israel's national will, and that of America, to fight.

Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 30, 2008.

Well, it was unlikely that Rice, who is here, would have readily walked away without further concessions from Israel for the sake of the "peace process." Some concessions, of some sort, from our craven, appeasing government. But what has taken place is above and beyond.

After Rice met with Defense Minister Barak and PA Prime Minister Fayyad here in Jerusalem, she actually said she was "amazed" by the gestures being advanced by Israel. I don't wonder at her amazement, as this sort of one-sided, tushy-kissing effort to be nice to an entity that in fact wishes us gone is quite breath-taking. But, rather than being "amazed," I'm just plain shocked. And outraged.

Rice announced that a number of concrete actions will be taken to improve the situation.


Take a deep breath before reading this list of Barak's major offers:

[] The establishment of a Palestinian city (or series of neighborhoods) north of the town of al-Bireh, outside of Ramallah, to be paid for by a Jordanian businessman, to alleviate housing shortages in the Ramallah area. It would house tens of thousands of Palestinians.

This strikes me as most offensive of all. After the PA screams bloody murder about building a few hundred units in existing communities, and just one day after Abbas lied about this and said we were doing unprecedented building, we make this offer? [] Increasing the number of laborers allowed into Israel to 5,000. [] Taking down one checkpoint and 50 roadblocks, in order to ease the movement of Palestinians between the cities of Jenin, Tulkarm, Kalkilya and Ramallah.

As I remember, these roadblocks went up because easy movement between these cities allowed weapons to be transported.

[] Easing of restrictions on Palestinian public figures.

But just about a week ago that a Palestinian official was caught smuggling large numbers of phones from Jordan.

[] Easing security checks for Palestinian businessmen.

Of course, a businessman would never aid a terrorist.

Barak further suggested:

[] Upgrading the infrastructure for aiding the Palestinians waiting at the crossings, the cost of which is estimated at NIS 8.3 million.

[] Transferring 325 cars and logistic equipment from the IDF to the Palestinian security organizations, including generators, blankets and first aid kits.


I have on occasion commented that our leaders who take such actions are crazy. But I've been cautioned by some readers to avoid saying that, because truly crazy people are absolved of responsibility for their actions –– and the comment is on the mark.

What I will say, instead, is that this is very sick, but that Barak remains fully responsible for his decisions.


You may be wondering what the PA will be offering in all of this. After all, Fayyad and Barak met together to put forward suggests to improve the situation.

Well, it was agreed that the Palestinians security forces must assume "greater responsibility."

I did not note a precise delineation of responsibility for what.

They also agreed to step up efforts to "prevent terror."

Again, that vagueness. Nothing that could be quantified or measured –– the way Barak's promises on taking down 50 roadblocks or allowing 5,000 laborers into Israel can be measured.

I heard tonight, by the way, from a very reliable source that Rice said today that the US would be watching Israel closely to see that these commitments were honored.

But the Palestinians? Hey, they can say they made an effort to prevent terror, they gave it their best.


And Fayyad? This particular son of a bitch refused to make a public statement with Olmert and Rice. Take all that's offered, but not be seen to be too close to Israeli leader, who is an enemy of Palestine, after all. The photo op would not have served him in the street, which admires Hamas.


And as if this is not bad enough, Barak and Olmert are making gestures to Syria regarding resuming peace negotiations.

From a military perspective this is a disaster. I heard Maj. Gen (res) Yaakov Amidror –– former Commander of the IDF's National Defense College and currently with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs –– speak on a panel sponsored by Likud Anglo tonight. As Syria's demand for peace is return of the Golan Heights, his assessment was that negotiating peace with Syria might mean we would ultimately find ourselves fighting Iranians in the Galil.

Another panel member, Dan Diker –– Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs and a Senior Foreign Policy Analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs –– made this incisive observation: Timing is everything. We have just seen that heads of major Arab countries are snubbing Syria by not participating in the conference in Damascus. And now? Now is the time we pick to undercut that message and confer legitimacy on Syria by reaching out to Assad?

A theme of this panel was the recognition that concessions don't work. Israel, in 1993, had the notion that the more we gave the more the world would respect us. But the reverse has happened, as the world has lost respect for us and has stopped understanding that we have legitimate rights in this land. As we fail to stand up for ourselves, it is the Palestinian narrative that is being internalized internationally.


One last comment before closing: I heard it tonight from an American with major contacts (as I've hard it before from an international lawyer here with Washington DC connections): Rice is running the show, and she's doing the work of Saudi Arabia. But Bush's attitude towards Israel is not the same as Rice's. He is being seriously misled: By Rice, whom he trusts, and by the PA leaders, whose lovely words of peace he trusts, and by the Israeli leaders, who tell him how much we're willing to give up.

It may be futile. But it must be attempted at every juncture, calling on every possible political contact, sending every possible message: Bush needs to be provided with the realities.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, March 30, 2008.
"Barak says will allow establishment of Palestinian city. Israeli source says US Secretary of State Rice was 'amazed' by Israeli gestures to Palestinians presented during three-way meeting with defense minister, Palestinian prime minister"

The first item below is by Roni Sofer and appeared today in Ynet News. The second item by Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA is a list of "concessions" agreed to by Israel. Does this mean Israeli leaders are just weak? No, they are typical bullies –– they put Israel in jeopardy because they don't resist Rice's pressure but when they have the upper hand, they are despicable –– they put teenagers in jail for legal civil disobedience and place Israelis at risk of losing their lives. Likely Rice can handle them because she's also a craven bully but she's better at it –– she pushes where she can without mercy and caves when she encounters an alpha-er bitch or dog.

The comments to the original article are interesting –– they note that Israel doesn't have the sheckels to improve medical care or help the Jewish poor or for job training, but they have the money to evict Jews from their homes. Why not give money to compensate Arabs to move back to Arabland? Others note that while Arabs live in Israel as citizens that vote, no Jews are allowed in Arab countries –– and nobody complains about that.

Condoleezza Rice was amazed by the Israeli gestures to the Palestinians, an Israeli source reported Sunday following a three-way meeting between the US secretary of state, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

The Palestinian leader refused to issue a joint Palestinian-Israeli-American statement, which was supported by Barak due to the Israeli gestures to the Palestinians presented during the meeting.

Rice eventually delivered a short statement, and the three officials were photographed and bid farewell.

During the meeting, the US secretary of state received a 35-page booklet in English, prepared by Barak's assistants in three days. Barak demanded that the booklet include a series of real gesturers, which would manifest Israel's seriousness without harming the security of Israel's citizens.

Ynet has learned that the series of gestures include the establishment of a city or several neighborhoods near the West Bank city of Ramallah, which would be financed by a Jordanian businessman.

The project would be built north of the town of al-Bireh and is aimed to be inhabited by tens of thousands of Palestinians in a bid to ease the housing shortage in the Ramallah area.

The city will be connected by a road in the Birzeit area, approved by the IDF. The plan is currently subject to the approval of the Civil Administration, in coordination with the Palestinians.

35 pages of restrictions to be eased

Rice told Barak during the three-way meeting that she welcomed the serious work she was presented with. During her meetings Sunday with Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the US secretary of state said that such actions were the only way for the process to move forward.

Fayyad, Rice and Barak in Jerusalem (Photo: AFP)

The defense minister said during the meeting that Israel planned to remove the Mevo Horon outpost, in addition to two other outposts already removed.

Barak also announced that 700 Palestinian police officers would be allowed to enter Jenin, and that a checkpoint and 50 dirt roadblocks would also be removed, easing the Palestinians' movement between the West Bank cities of Jenin, Tulkarm, Qalqilya and Ramallah.

Additional gestures presented in the meeting include:

* The establishment of a Palestinian police station in the B areas.
* The transfer of 25 armored vehicles to the Palestinians.
* Ease of restriction on Palestinian public figures.
* Building two intersections for the Palestinians in the Hebron area.
* Advancing the establishment of industrial zones in Jericho and hebron.
* Increasing the number of laborers allowed to work in Israel to 5,000.

In addition, Palestinian businesspeople passing through the crossing will undergo easier security checks, and the daily quota of people allowed to pass will be increased from 500 to 1,500.

Barak also suggested upgrading the infrastructure for aiding the Palestinians waiting at the crossings, the cost of which is estimated at NIS 8.3 million, transferring 325 cars and logistic equipment from the IDF to the Palestinian security organizations, including generators, blankets and first aid kits, and looking into the possibility of handing bullet-proof vests to the police officers subject to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as building a sewage purification device in the Beit Hanoun area.

As she left the meeting Sunday, Rice said that the parties discussed the need to improve reality in accordance with the route suggested at the Annapolis peace conference. She added that Barak and Fayyad told her they had met before her arrival and would continue to meet in the future.

Rice's previous visit to the region took place only three weeks ago, and her recent remarks testify to Washington's dissatisfaction with the progress made. The US is concerned about the continued Israeli construction in the territories, the failure to evacuate illegal outposts and the presence of roadblocks across the West Bank.

Dr. Aaron Lerner commented:

Stop the presses! The following is an exhaustive list of concrete security achievements that Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad announced the PA would be setting as its goals in order to enhance the security in the area and in order to insure that the Israeli security concessions would not be exploited by terrorists: (left intentionally blank)

Question: Why is it that when the Olmert team sat down with the others to negotiate this announcement that they did not demand that the Palestinians also bring something concrete to the table?

Yes –– the Palestinians are going to deploy more gunmen –– aka policemen. And they said that they are going to make an effort. But while Israel has measurable performance requirements (the number of roadblocks dismantles, for example) the goals for the Palestinians are extremely vague. How about a goal for the number of weapons that they cease and hand over for destruction by a third party? How about a goal for the number of terrorists arrested, prosecuted and sent to prison? (not just stopped for a moment and then sent on their way) ]

"DM Barak Meets Us Secy. Of State Rice & Palestinian Authority Pm Fayyad"
(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)

Defense Minister Ehud Barak today (Sunday), 30.3.08, met with US Secretary of state Dr. Condoleeza Rice, at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. The two first met privately; later, they were joined by their delegations. Following the meeting, Defense Minister Barak held a three-way meeting with Secy. of State Rice and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, at which the three discussed various regional, diplomatic and security issues. Defense Minister also presented a package regarding the easing of various restrictions on the Palestinians, which he approved last week. The package is as follows:

Easing of Security Restrictions (fabric of life, law and order)

1. Approximately 50 dirt roadblocks will be removed thus enabling vehicular traffic between Jenin, Tulkarm, Kalkilya and Ramallah.

2. The opening of the permanent checkpoint in the Rimonim area.

3. Approval for the establishment of Palestinian police stations in B and B+ areas in order to promote law and order, after a comprehensive picture of deployments in Judea and Samaria will have been presented.

4. The deployment of 700 police personnel in the Jenin area (following their return from training in Jordan). Ultimate security responsibility will remain in Israel's hands.

5. Mechanisms for issuing action permits for Palestinian forces for movement to B areas and for movement across brigade areas, in order to better deal with law and order, will be improved.

6. An inquiry into lifting additional roadblocks and checkpoints in Judea and Samaria will be carried out in the coming weeks, with the intention of completion by mid-May.

7. The delivery of 25 APC's –– out of 50 –– was approved.

8. The delivery of 125 vehicles and pieces of logistical equipment for the Palestinian security forces has been approved

9. Approval of non-lethal equipment for the Presidential Guard is under consideration.

10. Various restrictions on the movement of public figures have been eased.

11. Various restrictions on the movement of businessmen have been eased.

12. Maximum assistance will be rendered vis-a-vis the 21-23.5.08 business conference in Bethlehem.

13. A senior Coordinator of Activities in the Territories officer has been appointed to deal with all issues involving the conference.

Increase of Employment in Israel

14. An additional 5,000 permits will be issued for construction work in Israel (the current quota is approximately 18,500).

Easing of Restrictions at Crossings (fabric of life)

15. Opening of the Sha'ar Ephraim Crossing for commercial activity on Fridays (immediate implementation).

16. Easing of pressure at the Kalandia and Rachel crossings by diverting prisoners' visits to the Beituniya Crossing.

17. Upgrading biometric procedures.

18. Upgrading the humanitarian infrastructure at crossings.

21-23.5.08 Bethlehem Economic Conference for Investors

A. To allow the passage of businessmen from Arab countries, the United Kingdom, Turkey, the Palestinian Authority and Israel on a VIP footing (without checks) at Ben-Gurion International Airport, the Allenby Bridge, the internal crossings (especially in the Jerusalem area), as per the lists and pre-screening.

B. Israeli businessmen will be allowed to enter Bethlehem for the conference.

C. Approval has been given for the organized movement of businessmen in Judea and Samaria cities and into Israel (including Jerusalem and Nazareth).

D. Hours at the Allenby Crossing will be extended to 24:00 on 20.5.08 and 24.5.08.

Advancing the Establishment of Industrial Zones in Jericho, Hebron and Mukibla

A. The Tarkumiya Industrial Zone in the Hebron District –– the goal is to move the "Ankara idea" from the Erez Industrial Zone to Judea and Samaria. The zone will receive Turkish financing.

B. An industrial zone will be established for the processing and marketing abroad of Palestinian agricultural produce. The Japanese industrial zone in Jericho will be established close to the city. Japan, the Japanese International Cooperation Agency and Jordan will be involved.

To Go To Top

Posted by Daisy Stern, March 30, 2008.

This news item comes from Agence France Presse.

The European Commission released 300 million euros (467 million dollars) in aid for the Palestinian Territories Tuesday, from the 440 million euros the EU executive has pledged for this year.

Of the total, 71 million euros is earmarked to go to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), a commission spokeswoman said.

The rest is to go to a new EU mechanism –– dubbed PEGASE –– intended to channel aid to help build a Palestinian state, with 176 million euros destined for supporting public services.

At the Paris donors' conference last December, Europe pledged more than half of the total 7.481 billion dollars (4.8 billion euros) in aid commitments to support the Palestinian Authority and recently revived peace talks.

At the time, the commission pledged 440 million euros in aid for the Palestinians this year.

Last Wednesday, the United States granted 150 million dollars to Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas's West Bank government in a first installment of the 555 million dollars Washington pledged at the donors' conference.

Contact Daisy Stern by email at daisystern1@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, March 30, 2008.

This was posted by Marisol on the Jihad Watch website:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020496.php It was written by Alex Peake and Andy Crick for the Sun

A MUSLIM bus driver told stunned passengers to get off so he could PRAY.

The white Islamic convert rolled out his prayer mat in the aisle and knelt on the floor facing Mecca.

Passengers watched in amazement as he held out his palms towards the sky, bowed his head and began to chant.

One, who filmed the man on his mobile phone, said: "He was clearly praying and chanting in Arabic.

"We thought it was a wind-up at first, like Jeremy Beadle."

The 21-year-old plumber added: "He looked English and had a London accent. He looked like a Muslim convert, with a big, bushy beard.

"Eventually everyone started complaining. One woman said, 'What the hell are you doing? I'm going to be late for work'."

After a few minutes the driver calmly got up, opened the doors and asked everyone back on board.

But they saw a rucksack lying on the floor of the red single-decker and feared he might be a fanatic. So they all refused.

The passenger added:

"One chap said, 'I'm not getting on there now'. "An elderly couple also looked really confused and worried.

"After seeing that no-one wanted to get on he drove off and we all waited until the next bus came about 20 minutes later. I was left totally stunned. It made me not want to get on a bus again."

The bizarre event unfolded on the number 81 in Langley, Berkshire, at around 1.30pm on Thursday.

The passenger said he rang the bus firm to complain but claimed it did not believe him.

He said: "They asked me, 'Are you sure?'. Then they said they would get back to me, but they weren't taking me seriously at all."

Yesterday the driver, who said his name was Hrun, told The Sun: "I asked everyone to get off because I needed to pray. I was running late and had not had time.

"I pray five times a day as a Muslim –– but I don't normally ask people to get off the bus to do it."

Muslims pray at pre-dawn, noon, afternoon, sunset and evening.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, March 30, 2008.

This was written by Steven Emerson; it appeared March 24, 2008 in IPT News

(The following story summarizes our first dossier installment on CAIR which can be found at

From the Hamas ties of its founders in 1994 to its solicitous stance toward accused terrorists today, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has demonstrated that its actual mission is far removed from the civil rights advocacy it claims to pursue.

Still standing as perhaps the clearest evidence of CAIR's insidious role, two key leaders of the group attended a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia called by Hamas members and supporters to devise a strategy for torpedoing the Oslo Accords aimed at Middle East peace.

An analysis of secret recordings of the meeting led the FBI to conclude that the gathering was held "to determine... [the participants'] course of action in support of Hamas' opposition to the [Oslo] peace plan and to decide how to conceal their activities from the scrutiny of the United States government."

Coupled with their support for the jihad in the Middle East, the attendees recognized the critical importance of domestic lobbying in the United States. One discussed encouraging the Islamic community "to be involved in the political life of this country," adding, "We should assist them in this task. This will be an entrance for us to put, through the Islamic community, pressure on the Congress and the decision makers in America."

That's where CAIR came in. Participants in that 1993 meeting discussed tailoring their message to an American audience, speaking of outright deception at times and of softening their rhetoric at others, as the following exchange between CAIR founders Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad shows:

Awad: What is important is that the language of the address is there even for the American. But, the issue is how to use it.


Omar Ahmad: There is a difference between you saying "I want to restore the '48 land" and when you say "I want to destroy Israel".


Awad: Yes, there are different but parallel types of address. There shouldn't be contradiction. Address people according to their minds. When I speak with the American, I speak with someone who doesn't know anything. As for the Palestinian who has a martyr brother or something, I know how to address him, you see?

This context helps explain why federal authorities have tied the CAIR to Hamas in three separate court filings in the past year. Prosecutors place CAIR on the Muslim Brotherhood's "Palestine Committee." An internal Palestine Committee document in 1994 lists CAIR as one of its "working organizations" along with IAP. Other records show that committee was created to advance the Hamas agenda within the United States.

Among the highlights in today's report:

  • CAIR was incorporated less than a year after the Philadelphia meeting by three officials of the now-defunct Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), long a central player in Hamas' U.S. support network and a group that the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service deemed in a 2001 memo to be "part of Hamas' propaganda apparatus."

  • As recently as the summer of 2007, the Dallas trial charging the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) with providing material support for Hamas produced extensive evidence that IAP –– CAIR's parent –– played a central role in the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee. Much of that evidence relates to Mousa Abu Marzook, now deputy political chief of Hamas, who served on the board of directors of IAP in 1989.

    The trial exhibits included a memo taken from the home of Ismail Elbarrasse, a former assistant to Marzook, which defines in chilling fashion the role the Muslim Brothers play in North America:

    The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack....

  • CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial. While the group contested that designation in court papers, it may have to live with it through a second trial scheduled for August. A mistrial was declared Oct. 22 after jurors could not reach unanimous verdicts on HLF and four individual defendants. A fifth defendant was acquitted on all but one count against him, that of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists.

  • IAP clearly subscribed to a Jihadist view of what was needed in the Middle East. The December 1988 edition of Ila Filastin, the group's Arabic-language publication, carried this statement: "The call for Jihad in the name of Allah is the only path for liberation of Palestine and all the Muslim lands ... We (Hamas) promise Allah, in continuing the Jihad way and with the martyrdom's way."

    Meanwhile, IAP's English-language Muslim World Monitor and Arabic periodical Al-Zaitounah, frequently praised Hamas terror attacks. An October 1994 Al-Zaitounah headline, for example, blared, "In Its Greatest Operation, Hamas Takes Credit for the Bombing of an Israeli Bus in the Center of Tel Aviv."

  • IAP promoted the Hamas agenda at its annual conferences, with members of the terrorist group making frequent appearances. It raised substantial funds at these conferences for HLF, then Hamas' primary fundraising arm in the United States. All proceeds from IAP's convention in 1996, for example, went to HLF. Rafeeq Jaber, one of CAIR's founders, had become IAP president earlier that year. In a 2003 civil deposition, Jaber acknowledged IAP's contract with HLF required them "to promote [HLF] in every way we can."

  • Declining an opportunity to distance CAIR from IAP in September 2003 Senate testimony, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad opted instead to defend the group as "a grassroots organization which continues to function legally and has only been 'linked' through allusion and no charge of criminality has been brought against the organization."

  • It was Awad and CAIR founding chairman Omar Ahmad who had attended the Hamas-organized Philadelphia session in 1993 –– though proof of their participation was not revealed publicly until years later. Both men insisted, as late as 2003, that they could not recall having attended.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has assembled a thorough dossier on CAIR's origins and activities which we present in installments during the next two weeks. You can read today's segment by clicking on this address: http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/109.pdf.

Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, March 30, 2008.

This was a guest posting on the A Simple Jew website:
http://www.asimplejew.blogspot.com/. A Yid in Iraq is just that –– a Jewish soldier serving in Iraq.

I have been in Iraq now since December 2007 and I will be leaving in March 2009. It is not getting any easier since the heat is starting to cap out at 100 degrees at 12:00 in the afternoon. Attacks on coalition forces are not letting up either. As a matter of fact they are getting worse, turn on CNN if you want to see what I am talking about.

I believe everything comes from Hashem and I have had two experiences when I was going to leave for a combat logistical patrol that confirmed this belief in my mind. On both occasions, I had a strong feeling as if I was being told not to go and there was going to be mortar attack on the route. The first time I did not go on the patrol and as soon as the patrol left, they we mortared and they had to go the bomb shelter on the other forward operating base were they were to pick up supplies. They had to wait for six hours in the bomb shelter to all clear was called. On the second occasion, I did not listen to this feeling and soon as I was stepping in the vehicle, mortars started to hit the route that we were going to travel on. I went and immediately davened and thanked Hashem for warning me.

A couple days before Purim, I was walking from our barracks and had three mortars land 150 to 200 meters in front me. I felt the ground shake. I just shook my head since it was only 0900, and thought to myself that it was not such a good way to start the day off. I thanked Hashem that these terrorists aim was off that morning.

Despite all of this, I had an outstanding Purim. It really made think of how our people are always being targeted and the strength our forefathers how they had to persevere in hard times. I had a vegetable kosher MRE (meal ready to eat), crackers, pomegranate juice (POM), and some dried mangos for dessert. It really hit the spot. I did not get to hear the Megillah, but I did read it. Haman's descendants were also present with me on Purim and they fired three mortar rounds into our forward operating base. Luckily no one was hurt. I know this sounds cynical but I am used to it now, at first I was a little nerve racked about it but I got used to it.

Regardless of where you are, you can still perform a mitzvah in any situation. On a daily basis I am assisting these war torn Arabs with food and water and trying speak English better. Today, I received a complement that I am the first Jew they have seen and I am representing my people well. That felt really good to hear, and I told him there are good people in all groups.

I always do my best to keep my head covered out of respect of Hashem and also because I want everyone to see that there is a Jew assisting them –– so there is no confusion on who I am and what I represent. I also do not want to be confused with one of the Gentile soldiers.

The reason I am writing to the world is that as a Jewish soldier I want our people of Israel to be proud!

My intent behind all of this is I want to break the stereotype of Jews. A lot of times Jews are not presented correctly as if we are weaker or softer than other groups especially in the military. We are a nation of holy people, we are also warriors and we all have a fighting spirit!

I am very excited because next month is Pesach, I have put in a request for two days off to travel to another base where a rabbi will be leading a seder.

G-d willing, things will go as planned.

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, March 30, 2008.

Truth is sometimes difficult to accept, especially concerning friends when they hit you with a gratuitous two by four, presumably for your own good. The two edged sword of some friendships indeed must be carefully contemplated, partially sheathing the sharper perilous edge with an impenetrable cover. The 03/28/2008 edition of the New York Times features a full page advertisement, within the International section, entitled 'The Gospel And The Jewish People An Evangelical Statement', endorsed by many prominent evangelists including clergymen. That prominent costly ad is such a two edged sword, affirming genuine friendship as well as an inferred fervent desire to save Judaism from itself, injecting a closing statement "....we believe that salvation is only found in Jesus, the Messiah of Israel and Savior of the World." No doubt, Israel, a nation with few friends, cannot afford to lose her most proactive and influential non-Jewish religious ally, even if that ally is motivated by an seemingly unalterable obsession to eventually morph the Jewish homeland and in fact all Jews into followers of the Christian gospel. Indeed, it is imperative that adherents of both faiths act in tandem to defeat an ever metastasizing Islamo-fascism, thus not be sidetracked by divisive conversion issues at this time. Still, it is quite troubling to witness arguably one of the world's most prominent newspapers sell marquee space to the WEA (World Evangelical Alliance) so it might direct its controversial message specifically at Jews. Statements such as "If Jesus is not the Messiah of the Jewish people, He cannot be the Savior of the World (Acts 4:12) and "....we reject the notion that it is deceptive for followers of Jesus Christ who were born Jewish to continue to identify as Jews (Romans 11:1)" are surely unsettling to both secular and religious Jews. Tolerance and respect for all reasonable non hate-filled belief systems, including Judaism, Christianity and a wide variety of world religions, is imperative if we are to maintain planet wide civil order. Hopefully, that principle might someday be ingested by those with extreme viewpoints, yet wishful thinking cannot rule the day, so perhaps it would be appropriate for prominent Jews to respond with a similar full page advertisement, extolling the generosity of a vital friend, but in no uncertain terms stating 'thanks but no thanks' to the evangelical proselytizers, having lost their way when it comes to understanding that Jewish culture is vibrant, not in need of spiritual advice, coercive or subtle.

Belief systems should be highly personal, indeed spiritually uplifting. Alas, sects of fundamentalist Islam, prone to jihadist inclinations, have degenerated into intolerant, misogynist, hate-filled, anti-secular in effect cults, devoid of personal tolerance or enlightening spirit. Jews, Christians, including Evangelical Christians, as well as moderate Muslims have vested interests in preserving Israel, currently threatened by those adhering to degenerate Islam. Thus Jews, especially those residing within the Jewish homeland, at such a perilous juncture in time, for one, must remain solid allies with Evangelical Christians, despite their tendencies to proselytize. Indeed, the enemy of her sworn enemy must remain a friend of Israel, especially when so few friends are available. Furthermore, a Judeo-Christian alliance with moderate Muslims would surely make sense, isolating those who besmirch the tenets of peaceful Islam. Might the Israeli Knesset consider organizing a conference to discuss such matters? No doubt Jerusalem, Israel's capital and holiest city, would be a perfect venue for Jews, Christians, and moderate Muslims to gather. Why not call it the Tolerance Conference, denoting the overriding principle of a sensible world.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 29, 2008.

This is called "Civil Fights: Meet the world's most incompetent ethnic cleansers" by Evelyn Gordon, and it appeared March 19, 2008 in The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420731816&pagename= JPos t%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

It is hard to decide which aspect of Mahmoud Abbas's recent "ethnic cleansing" accusation is more worrying: what it reveals about him, or what it reveals about the world's willingness to tolerate even the vilest and most obviously nonsensical slanders against Israel.

Addressing the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Dakar last Thursday, the Palestinian Authority chairman declared: "Our people in the city [of Jerusalem] are facing an ethnic cleansing campaign through a set of Israeli decisions such as imposing heavy taxes, banning construction and closing Palestinian institutions, in addition to separating the city from the West Bank by the racist separation wall."

If Jerusalem's Arabs are facing ethnic cleansing, then Israelis are surely the most incompetent ethnic cleansers in human history. After all, ethnic cleansing usually aims at removing an unwanted population and substituting your own nationals.

But according to data from the Central Bureau of Statistics and the Jerusalem Institute of Israel Studies, Jerusalem's Arab population skyrocketed 266 percent between 1967, when Israel annexed east Jerusalem, and 2006 (the last year for which figures are available). That is almost double the Jewish population's growth during those years (143 percent); consequently, the city's ratio of Jews to Arabs shrank from 74:26 in 1967 to 66:34 in 2006.

Even during the intifada, which prompted the fence and the closed institutions that Abbas decries, the Arab population continued ballooning: It rose from 208,700 at the end of 2000 to 252,400 at the end of 2006, an increase of 21 percent in six years, or 3.5 percent a year. Jerusalem's Jewish population grew by only 4.7 percent during those years, or less than 1 percent a year. In absolute terms, the Arab increase (43,700 people) was double the Jewish increase (21,100).

Nor was the Arab growth solely due to natural increase: Ziad al-Hamouri, who heads the Jerusalem Center for Economic Rights, estimates that some 30,000 Arabs have moved to Jerusalem since construction of the fence began; others put the figure even higher.

IF ABBAS is truly unaware of these very well-publicized facts, this casts doubt on his viability as a negotiating partner. Since any deal must be rooted in reality, it is hard to negotiate with someone who remains determinedly ignorant even about "core issues" such as Jerusalem. But more importantly, how can you trust the good faith of someone who has no qualms about accusing you of one of the most heinous crimes in the modern lexicon without even bothering to check his facts? Almost certainly, however, Abbas does know the facts. After all, both Palestinians and Israelis frequently cite east Jerusalem's Arab majority to support Palestinian claims to part of the city.

But in that case, the question becomes even more troubling –– because how can you trust the moderation, good faith and peaceful intentions of someone who has no qualms about publicly accusing you of such a heinous crime even knowing that it is false? Bluntly, this was nothing less than deliberate incitement against Israel, in a forum guaranteed to receive maximum coverage in the Arab world.

Nor was this a one-time aberration. Just last month, for instance, Abbas told the Jordanian daily Al Dustour: "At this time, I object to the armed struggle, since we are unable to conduct it; however, in future stages things may change." Yet if his only reason for opposing armed struggle is that he currently believes he cannot wage it successfully, that is hardly reassuring, as this reason would disappear following a peace agreement: With the IDF gone from the West Bank and Jordan border, Palestinians could easily import quantities of sophisticated arms and plan attacks unhindered.

THEN THERE was the PA's rejection in December of a French proposal, backed by senior UN officials, for a UN resolution mandating educational activitieto support the peace process. The proposal would have amended an existing resolution that requires teaching about alleged Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, thereby fostering hatred rather than reconciliation. Yet Abbas evidently prefers fostering hatred.

It is hard to imagine anything more innocuous, or more vital to the success of the process, than peace education. If Abbas cannot even agree to that, one has to wonder about his commitment to peace.

There are numerous similar examples, such as his June 2006 charge that Israel was seeking to "eliminate the Palestinian people." Never mind that, by the PA's own figures, the Palestinian population of the territories has quadrupled under Israeli rule –– including a 34 percent increase in the past decade alone.

But perhaps even more worrying than Abbas's statements is the world's response. Not a single international leader bothered to condemn last week's ethnic cleansing accusation. Nor did anyone condemn his Al-Dustour remarks, his rejection of the peace education resolution, or any of his other less-than-moderate statements and actions.

Given the world's fixation with resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its reluctance to acknowledge that Abbas may be miscast as a peacemaker is understandable. Yet by tolerating such blatant incitement, the international community further undermines the prospects for peace.

First, such remarks scarcely encourage Israelis to believe that Abbas is acting in good faith, which is an obvious prerequisite for Israeli consent to any agreement. For that reason alone, the world should be interested in condemning such remarks.

Far more important, however, is the message this sends to Palestinians. If Abbas can hurl such vicious and patently false accusations at Israel without even a pro forma protest from world leaders, that tells Palestinians that willingness to live in peace with Israel is not necessary to retain international support. If the world has no objection to even the most vicious Palestinian incitement –– despite knowing that such incitement routinely leads to actual violence –– then it clearly cares nothing about peace; what it cares about is satisfying Palestinian demands.

That, in turn, encourages Palestinians to believe that eventually, the world will force Israel to accede to these demands even without peace –– thereby obviating any need to stop the violence or make the kind of concessions negotiated agreements always entail. And as long as they believe this, peace will remain a distant dream.

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 29, 2008.

This was written by Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com International Editor.

(CNSNews.com) –– The United Nations' Human Rights Council has elected onto a panel of special advisors a left-wing Swiss sociologist with a record of sympathizing with the Castro and Mugabe regimes and criticizing the United States and Israel.

And in another move that drew fire, the U.N.'s top rights body also appointed an American academic strongly critical of Israel to a post dealing with Israel's conduct in the territories claimed by the Palestinians.

During its less than two years in existence, the Human Rights Council has itself been criticized –– by Western governments and two U.N. secretary-generals among others –– for focusing disproportionately on Israel, while paying relatively little attention to pressing rights issues elsewhere.

Meeting in Geneva on Wednesday, the council elected Swiss national Jean Ziegler as one of 18 members of an expert "advisory committee" that functions as the body's think tank.

Forty of the council's 47 members voted in favor of Ziegler, who for the past eight years has served as a U.N. "special rapporteur on the right to food." (The U.N. has around 20 such reporter-investigators, each focused on a particular country situation or on a theme such as racism or extreme poverty.)

Advisory committee members serve three-year terms and are eligible for re-election once. According to U.N. documents, requirements for the posts include "recognized competence and experience in the field of human rights; high moral standing; and independence and impartiality."

Among those who urged the Swiss government to rescind its nomination of Ziegler was U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

In a letter sent earlier this week, Ros-Lehtinen accused Ziegler of "unyielding support of many of the world's most vicious dictators," and noted that a 2005 comment comparing Israelis to concentration camp guards had brought a reprimand from then U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan.

Others who called on the Swiss government to withdraw the nomination included a group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Canadian lawmaker and human rights advocate professor Irwin Cotler, and former Cuban political prisoner Angel De Fana, who now heads a U.S.-based organization focusing on political prisoners in his homeland.

'US must demand reform'

In another decision on Wednesday, the council appointed Princeton international law scholar Richard Falk as the U.N.'s new "special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967." He reportedly was picked from more than 180 potential candidates.

Falk, a critic of Bush administration foreign policies who has written approvingly of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, provoked controversy last summer with an article that compared Israeli treatment of Palestinians to Nazi atrocities against European Jews.

Israeli ambassador Itzhak Levanon, whose country is not a member of the council, told the body that a man who had accused Israel of "genocidal tendencies" could not possibly be considered impartial, a job requirement stipulated in reform documents adopted by the council last year.

Canadian envoy Marius Grinius dissociated his country from the decision, saying Canada doubted that Falk would meet the required standard of impartiality.

In a statement reacting to both developments, Ros-Lehtinen said the election of Ziegler and appointment of Falk "again demonstrate the bias and hypocrisy of the U.N.'s human rights organizations."

The Florida Republican called Ziegler "an avowed defender of dictators and apologist for Islamist extremist groups," pointing to his statements defending Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, as well as remarks interpreted as sympathetic towards Hizballah, the anti-U.S., anti-Israel radical Shiite group in Lebanon.

"Mr. Ziegler's consistent anti-Israel rhetoric adds yet another voice to the chorus of U.N. representatives who would rather denounce Israel than condemn Islamist extremism," she said.

Ros-Lehtinen also decried Falk's appointment, and said the council appeared to be "intent on marginalizing voices of reason and moderation."

"This sad occasion reinforces the need for the United States and other responsible nations to demand fundamental reform of the United Nations."

'Immense independence'

Ziegler previously has been criticized by Washington. When in 2003 the Human Rights Council's predecessor, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), considered a motion to extend his "right to food" role, the U.S. alone voted against it, accusing him of irresponsible statements and of abusing his mandate.

U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based NGO, has been a longstanding critic of Ziegler, noting among other things his support for French author Roger Garaudy, a convert to Islam who has denied the Holocaust.

U.N. Watch monitored Wednesday's proceedings, and the group's executive director, Hillel Neuer, commented afterwards that "even within the benighted U.N. Human Rights council, today was a dark day for human rights."

Invited to respond to the allegations of partiality, Falk –– who is professor emeritus of international law and practice at Princeton –– said that during his long professional career he had done his best to be objective when dealing with relating international law to foreign policy and human rights disputes.

"This has produced some controversial assessments of sensitive issues, but I believe that their publication has helped give some voice to neglected views. I have often felt that the Palestinian side of the story is told in a manner that is biased and misleading."

Falk stressed that he has never supported "violence against civilian targets, regardless of provocation."

"I have expressed views on the future of Israel and Palestine that are motivated by beliefs in the conditions that will bring peace between the two peoples," he said. "I do not believe that a one-sided and unbalanced endorsement of Israel's approach to peace and security is in the interest of either the United States or Israel itself."

Attempts to reach Ziegler for comment were unsuccessful. Ziegler has previously accused Neuer and U.N. Watch of mounting "a campaign of defamation" against him, and said allegations of anti-Semitism were ironic, given his past efforts to expose Swiss banks' financial cooperation with the Nazis.

Swiss foreign ministry spokesman Guillaume Scheurer was quoted by Swiss national radio Wednesday as saying Ziegler had "an excellent knowledge of all economic, social and cultural rights" and "immense independence."

In one of his last acts under his "right to food" mandate, Ziegler earlier this month delivered a report to the Human Rights Council on a visit he paid to Cuba last October. He said the U.S. "illegal blockade" of the island was the main obstacle to Cubans getting access to food.

As part of a broader process aimed at reforming the U.N., the Human Rights Council was established in 2006 to replace the widely discredited UNCHR, whose sessions frequently saw rights-abusing nations close ranks to block Western criticism.

Since then the council, whose current members include China, Russia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, has held seven regular and six special sessions, with a large proportion of its deliberations dedicated to Israel.

Last year, it controversially decided to end mandates for special rapporteurs on human rights situations in Cuba as well as Belarus.

This week, China, backed by its allies, succeeded in blocking efforts to have the council debate the recent clampdown on dissent in Tibet where around 140 people have been killed since March 10, according to Tibet's government-in-exile.

Addressing the U.N. General Assembly last November, U.S. envoy Robert Hagen criticized the council for what he called a "relentless focus on Israel," the elimination of the mandates relating to Cuba and Belarus, and a "reluctance to address principal violators and violations of human rights."

The U.S. decided against standing for council membership in 2006 and again last year.

See Also:
Islamic States Chide UN Head for Criticizing Human Rights Body (July 26, 2007)
In Rebuke to UN, US Will Not Seek Seat on Rights Council (March 7, 2007)
African and Islamic Nations Shield Sudan at UN Rights Meeting (Dec. 13, 2006)
UN Rights Expert Has Controversial Track Record (April 26, 2006)

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 29, 2008.

This was written by Avigdor Lieberman and it appeared in Haaretz
(http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/ PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=969540). MK Avigdor Lieberman is chair of the Yisrael Beiteinu party. /hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=969540

In an opinion piece published in Haaretz on March 24, "The Vision of an Arab-free Knesset," Shahar Ilan wrote: "Those who seek to cast them [representatives of the Arab public] out will engender a process which, in a short period of time, could lead to the formation of an Israeli Arab parliament, calling for autonomy or an uprising in Israel."

Unfortunately, aspirations for the creation of an Israeli Arab parliament, and for Arab autonomy in Israel, have been harbored for years by the leaders of Israel's Arab community. In a document entitled "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel," drawn up by the National Committee for the Heads of the Arab Local Authorities in Israel, the manner in which this process would unfold is presented in detail.

It should be added that making statements like "We will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state"; participating in the funerals of, and memorial services for, mass murderers; burning the Israeli flag; hurling rocks at vehicles; perpetrating near-lynches of Jerusalem municipal inspectors; and defining Israel Defense Forces operations intended to protect Sderot's residents as "crimes against humanity" –– all contribute to the continued escalation exacerbated and supported by the Arab leadership in Israel.

I know of no other state that would allow its citizens such freedom of action. During the Falklands War, Argentinean soccer players on English teams were forced to return to Argentina. Only two weeks ago, in Spain, in a soccer match between Athletic de Bilbao and Valladolid, during a minute of silence for the member of a local council who had been assassinated two days earlier, fans shouted slogans supporting the Basque underground, ETA. Spain's state prosecutor's office immediately launched an investigation to identify those who had shown lack of respect for the murdered official's memory and his family; such disrespectful behavior in Spain is a crime punishable by a prison sentence.

Only in Israel can citizens take the law into their own hands; only in Israel is lawlessness the law of the land. Article 5 of the National Flag, Symbol and Hymn Law specifies that "those who dishonor the national flag or national symbol ... or who employ the national flag or national symbol in a manner dishonoring the flag or symbol, are liable to a prison sentence of up to one year ..." Nonetheless, burning and otherwise dishonoring the Israeli flag have become routine actions. Every week assemblies are held in Arab towns throughout Israel; they are attended by members of the Arab leadership and include the burning of the Israeli flag. Yet the law that exists in our lawbooks is never enforced.

Article 144, Section D(2) of Israel's penal code specifies that "those who issue a call to perpetrate an act of violence or terror, or who express praise for, sympathy with, or encouragement for an act of violence or terror, or who voice support for, or solidarity with, such an act ... are liable to a prison sentence of up to five years."

There is no need to remind ourselves of the events of October 2000, nor of the Or Commission that investigated them, which concluded that, "there are solid grounds for asserting that the messages [of the Arab leadership] ... contributed substantially to the events that occurred in October 2000, through the encouragement and incitement of the public to adopt an aggressive, confrontational stand against the state and the police force acting on its behalf to maintain law and order."

Is the law enforced? Of course not.

The attempt to assign the Yisrael Beiteinu party negative labels and to represent our position on the Jewish people's rights to this land as racism and as incitement against the Arab population is a distortion of reality. I see no difference between the actions of Tali Fahima [who served a prison sentence for aiding Palestinian militants] and those of former Knesset member Azmi Bishara. The same holds true for Neturei Karta's Rabbi Moshe Hirsch and Sheikh Ra'ad Salah, leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement. Naturally, I do not support the violent struggle that the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee is promoting against young Israeli Arabs interested in volunteering for national service, who are turned into pariahs in Arab society.

The only demand that can and should be made of Israel's citizens –– whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian –– is that they be loyal to the state and its values as a Jewish state. Just as the Jews of Morocco are loyal to its king, Israel's minority groups must be loyal to the state they live in. I am not advocating the silencing of protest or any infringement of freedom of expression; however, legitimate protest must be distinguished from the abuse of democracy.

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 29, 2008.

Motzei Shabbat (after Shabbat)

An Arab summit is being held in Damascus this weekend, but is being boycotted by several Arab nations: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. The refusal to come was meant clearly to send a message of displeasure to Syria for its association with Iran, and its support of Hamas and Hezbollah.

According to an AP report that ran in the Post:

"'There are now two axes –– Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah are on one side and the rest are on the other,' said Wahid Abdel-Meguid of the Cairo-based Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.

"Arab summits are all about protocol and symbolism, and in that language, the show of disdain from top US-allies Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could not be more clear.

"In an unprecedented move, they are sending minor officials rather than their heads of state –– or even their prime ministers or foreign ministers.

"Even Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh decided Friday not to come, sending his vice president in his place...'Syria is losing friends, one after the other,' said Mansour Hayal, a Yemeni political analyst."


Uh huh... But guess who didn't shun the conference? Our "moderate peace partner," Mahmoud Abbas. Tells us a great deal about which side he's on.

And let me share with you what he said at the conference:

"The coming couple of months are decisive. If we don't reach a solution by the end of this year, it means the whole region will be on the verge of a new era of tension and loss of confidence in peace.

"The last few months have witnessed unprecedented Israeli escalation in settlement expansion in Jerusalem and the West Bank. It has become clear that the Israeli government is imposing on the ground the political solution that it wants.

"Negotiations cannot continue under the Israeli bulldozers swallowing our land and building settlements and under the daily Israeli military operations."

He spoke of Israel "brutally" killing innocent Palestinians in Gaza, and he asked those present to "think seriously of Arab...protection for our people," by which he meant troops.


You'll forgive my absolutely undiplomatic and impolitic response. This son of a bitch lies through his teeth. "Unprecedented Israeli escalation in settlement expansion"? Olmert had--- most regrettably –– caved completely and put a freeze on any building in eastern Jerusalem or Judea and Samaria. That freeze was lifted minimally, and only in line with what had been approved well prior to Annapolis, because of Olmert's fear of losing his coalition. I do not believe for a second that Abbas doesn't know this. He is inciting.


But this charge allows me to return briefly here to the issue of settlements and why they do not constitute a stumbling block to peace.

First, it must be noted that the underlying assumption here –– which is outrageous –– is that everything outside the Green Line "belongs" to the PA, and is thus area upon which we have no right to build. That I've recently exposed as fallacious in terms of history and international law. Israel's final borders have yet to be negotiated.

What I want to advance here are a few other perspectives, which the world would do well to consider.

-- When Sharon decided to withdraw from Gaza in 2005, he pulled out all of the settlements of Gush Katif. I am not applauding this; I, in fact, deplore what happened. But it did happen, and it provides evidence for the fact that if there is Israeli intent withdrawals are possible.

My own position most strongly is that there should be no withdrawals and we should stand on our rights to the land. But the international community should begin to realize that stopping all construction is not necessary for peace negotiations to continue. Instead of making the "settlements" the whipping boy, let there first be a total elimination of terrorism, and let there be sincere negotiations with genuine desire on the other side for a two-state solution. Then let Israel and her genuine peace partner work out what should be relinquished by Israel and what not. Before that day comes (and we're talking more than a generation from now at a minimum), to demand of Israel that there be no building to accommodate natural growth in existing communities is nonsense. And natural growth in existing communities is all that has been sanctioned.

Then too, there is this thought: Why is it assumed by the international community that the PA has a right to a territory that is Judenrein? They charge us with apartheid, but this demand, which truly reflects apartheid thinking, elicits no reproach. It is a given: They want the land, and so Jews can't live there. Why is it that there would be hell to pay if we tried to move out all Arabs living in Israel, but that the same standard doesn't apply to the PA? Why cannot it be said that those Jews who remain in areas that would be going to the PA would be offered the option of remaining?

I feel driven to clarify again that I am not advocating any of this. I am merely pointing out the double standard that is at work and the unreasonable approach that is being taken with regard to this matter.

-- I will add here that while there is screaming about our building in eastern Jerusalem, Arabs are doing a huge amount of illegal building to which scant attention is paid. Double standard indeed!


Let's return to Abbas for just a moment. With everything else, according to Khaled Abu Toameh, reporting in yesterday's Post, Abbas's Fatah is contending with an unprecedented rash of scandals that further weakens it.

"Remarked [a] Fatah representative: 'Fatah has lost much of what's left of its credibility. If we hold a free election in the West Bank tomorrow, it's almost certain that Hamas will win.'"

The scandals include accusations that Ahmed Qurei, who heads the PA negotiating team, deposited $3 million of PLO money in his accounts. Additionally, large shipments of expired medicine that had been illegally smuggled into the West Bank have been confiscated, with "dozens of physicians, pharmacists and officials from the PA's Ministry of Health are currently being interrogated for their alleged role in the medicine scandal, which is believed to have resulted in the death of many patients."

For details on these scandals and others see:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1206632349492&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, March 29, 2008.

[UPDATE: If you go to where Fitna was shown on LiveLeak
(http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103), LiveLeak now reads:

This media item has been removed by the uploader! Reason from user 'Geert_Wilders': "deleted due to copyright issues... will upload edited version shortly..."

For alternative viewing sites: click here.]

You can well imagine that these threats came from radical Muslims, which only goes to prove the point of the movie that there is a connection between Islam and violence in the world.

For those passingly familiar with the subject matter of the Fitna movie, the content is shocking.

For those who are more familiar with the subject, the movie did not cover all the bases. Read what Fitna left out on

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages: e.g., 29530-29588. This is an excerpt:

Geert Wilders lives with 24 hour security and has for the past few years when he began to raise his voice as a Dutch parliamentarian to speak out against the dhimmification of the Netherlands which was seeing Dutch society being transformed by Islamification, which was being accomplished by the more radical Dutch Muslims whose demands were being appeased because the demands were all accompanied by express or veiled threats of violence if the Dutch government did not accede to their demands.

Recall that Hyrsan Ali, a Somali born Dutch Parliamentarian was forced to emigrate from the Netherlands to America for having spoken out against Muslim radicalism in her nation. She lives with 24 hour security because the threats to her life are as dire today as they were before.

Recall Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch journalist and film maker who was outspoken against radical Islam and he was murdered by a Dutch radical Muslim and left on the street with a note stabbed into his chest warning that Van Gogh's fate would be that of anyone who insulted Islam.

Recall Salomon Rushdie who continues to live with 24 hour security because of death threats by radical Muslims.

And consider our own Canadian Irshad Manji, an outspoken critic of Islam and the author of the book, 'The Trouble with Islam'. Manji is a Muslim who advocates reforming Islam to rid itself of the fundamentalist teachings that inspire hatred and intolerance of non-Muslims and Jihad to achieve Muslim goals through violence against non-Muslims. She too lives with 24 hour security because of the ongoing death threats against her.

It is not enough to say Islamofacism is unacceptable in our world today and within our society. It is not just unacceptable, it is an outrage.

It is going to take a lot of Westerners to rage against those Islamofacists who are seeking to transform the world to their ways.

Sad to say, in a number of ways these fundamentalist Muslims are succeeding because of Western policies that are driven by fear of Muslim violence and false hopes that by appeasing the demands of radical Muslims, at some point satisfy the radical Muslim appetite for transforming Western society further will be satisfied and they will abandon their violence as their means to their ends.

Dream on. Fat chance of that happening.

Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Kannan Devan, March 28, 2008.

Muslims resort to all available strategies including judicial recourse available in democratic countries to promote terror policies of Islamo fascists. Islamic states refuse to provide any opportunity for non believers for freedom, opportunity, religious practice or decent living conditions. The history of Islam is replete with terror and violence to advance their deadly policies. It is time for civilized nations to join together and fight vigorously against Islamic invasion and its terror policies. The Dutch government made a terrible mistake in banning the film that gives us a clear, correct and comprehensive picture of true Islam. How far are we going to tolerate Islamic threat, intimidation and violence? For the sake of freedom, peace democracy and coexistence, we need to join together and fight against thess Islamic monsters.

View Fitna at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=791_1206693522
[UPDATE: It has been removed and a "revised" version will be shown –– because of "copyright issues." Yeah, right.]

For alternative viewing sites: click here.

The article below is called "Muslims Demand Ban On Anti-Koran Film."

Islamic leaders in the Netherlands will ask a court later today to ban a film which accuses the Koran of inciting violence. Dutch MP Geert Wilders launched his film on the internet after local distributors refused to release it. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende added his criticism of the film, saying it was offensive to Muslims.

"The film shows images of violent acts, and holds Islam and the Koran responsible for them. The government condemns such acts and those who commit them. The film equates Islam with violence, and we reject this interpretation. The vast majority of Muslims reject extremism and violence. In fact the victims are often also Muslims."

The film is called "Fitna", a Koranic term sometimes translated as "strife."

It intersperses shots of the 9/11 attacks in New York City, and other bombings blamed on Islamic radicals, with quotations from the Koran.

There have already been widespread protests against the film, and the governments of Pakistan and Iran have made their displeasure very clear.

NATO fears an explosion of Muslim anger could threaten the security of foreign forces in Afghanistan, which include some 1,600 Dutch troops.

Contact Kannan Devan at kannanivmn@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 28, 2008.

From http://europenews.dk/en/node/8787

Fitna is a film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom in the Dutch parliament. The movie offers a critical view of Islam and the Koran. The name comes from the Arabic word Fitna which is used to describe "disagreement and division among people", or a "test of faith in times of trial".

"Movie Portrays Islam as Violent and Bloodthirsty"
by Hillel Fendel of Arutz-Sheva

(IsraelNN.com) The long-awaited and controversial movie Fitna, which graphically portrays Islam as a religion seeking to dominate the world and slaughter non-believers, finally debuted on the internet on Thursday night.

Within two hours of the film's release on Britain's LiveLeak.com video site, close to two million people had seen it. More than half of them were from Holland, home to the film's producer, Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

The screening of the movie had been in doubt after the world's largest website name registrar, Network Solutions, decided to block the movie's home site. The decision to censor the film bolstered concerns that the extent of the fear of Islamic violence has even affected WWW content.

On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution against the movie. Proposed by Islamic countries, the resolutiion passed by a 21-10 vote, over the opposition of Europe and Canada.

Despite all, LiveLeak stepped in to film the movie, at www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103, explaining, "There was no legal reason to refuse Geert Wilders the right to post his film on LiveLeak.com, and it is not our place to censor people based on an emotive response." Many websites feared even to list the URL at which the movie could be seen. The video has English subtitles.
[UPDATE: LiveLeak took down the original and will be showing an edited version sometime in the future.

For alternative viewing sites: click here.]

Response to the film has not been as intense as feared –– though Dutch police had upped security precautions to near-top levels. The movie was condemned by Iran, Indonesia, and the Netherlands, but no rioting or other reactions like those that followed the publication in Denmark of anti-Mohammed cartoons have broken out.

Fitna includes graphic footage of Moslem terror attacks around the world, including beheadings, disfigured bodies, destroyed buses, and the like. The scenes are accompanied by the relevant verses in the Koran, such as, "Prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able of gathering to strike terror, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies." This particular verse is followed by clips of a plane slamming into the World Trade Center and setting the building afire, and imams calling for the annihilation of all infidels.

One Moslem cleric is seen calling for the murder of Jews; he unsheathes a sword and cries out in nearly uncontrollable frenzy, "By Allah, we shall cut off the Jew's head! Allah is great! Allah is great! Jihad for the sake of Allah!" The audience, in a similar frenzy, cheers him on.

The film ends with the sound of a page being torn out of a book, followed by stark sentences on the screen reading, "It is not up to me, but up to Moslems themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Koran. Muslims want you to make way for Islam, but Islam does not make way for you. The government insists that you respect Islam, but Islam has no respect for you. Islam wants to rule, submit, and seeks to destroy our Western civilization. In 1945, Nazism was defeated in Europe. In 1989, Communism was defeated in Europe. Now, the Islamic ideology has to be defeated."

The video is also viewable at:



The Movie Fitna is now available on youtube :
Part 1 : http://youtube.com/watch?v=5kcev1K-NOc
Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=TdLMFs4fv4E







Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, March 28, 2008.

This was written by Aaron Klein for World Net Daily

PM Olmert repeatedly denied holy city discussed with Palestinians

Illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem (WND)

JERUSALEM –– Israel is negotiating with the Palestinian Authority regarding "all core issues," including the status of Jerusalem, PA President Mahmoud Abbas said yesterday.

"[Talks deal with] all the core issues without exception: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, borders and security. We hope to achieve a settlement in 2008; there are many obstacles but we hope they will be removed. We are all pressing to reach a settlement by the target date," Abbas said.

His statements fly in the face of recent claims by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who repeatedly has denied Jerusalem is being discussed. The ultra-Orthodox Shas party, a key member of Olmert's coalition, has pledged to bolt the government if Jerusalem is negotiated.

Shas has denied Jerusalem is being discussed during regular weekly Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which commenced after last November's U.S.-sponsored Annapolis summit.

"Nobody is talking about Jerusalem. The moment Jerusalem is being discussed, Shas will leave the government –– period," Shas spokesman Roi Lachmanovitch told Israel National News.

Abbas' statement yesterday was specifically referring to the weekly meetings between chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

The PA leader's comments are sure to result in increased pressure against Shas to leave the government, a move that likely would send Olmert's government into crisis and could result in the prime minister's downfall.

Last week, WND reported the son of the Shas spiritual leader demanded his father's party immediately bolt the government amid rampant media reports Jerusalem is up for negotiations.

Rabbi Jacob Yosef accused the Shas party of "selling Jerusalem" for 478 million Israeli shekels, or $138 million. Yosef's father, Rabbi Ovadye Yosef, serves as the spiritual leader of Shas, where he is also considered the party's most important and revered figure.

Earlier this month, the Knesset's Finance Committee approved $138 million in government funds to Shas' educational institutions as part of the party's coalition agreement with Olmert.

"How dare you sell out Jerusalem for 478 million shekels. Jerusalem is worth more than all monies in the world," said Jacob Yosef, rabbi of the Givat Mordechai neighborhood in Jerusalem, addressing his father's party.

Jacob Yosef is also a member of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace, a coalition of more than 350 Israeli rabbinic leaders and pulpit rabbis.

Yosef accused his father's party of staying in the government until a formal announcement regarding dividing Jerusalem is made, by which time, the rabbi said, it will be too late.

"When someone brings a rope to hang your child, will you say, 'Oh, it's nothing, he only brought a rope?' Or if a killer is only sharpening the knife, will you say, 'It's nothing, he's only sharpening the knife?' You will stop him right at the beginning, because by the time the knife is on the throat it will be too late. What is Shas waiting for? It must leave the government right now," Yosef exclaimed.

Olmert's government has hinted a number of times it will divide Jerusalem and reportedly has halted all Jewish construction permits for eastern sections of the city.

In December, Israeli Vice Premier Haim Ramon said the country "must" give up sections of Jerusalem for a future Palestinian state, even conceding the Palestinians can rename Jerusalem "to whatever they want."

"We must come today and say, friends, the Jewish neighborhoods, including Har Homa, will remain under Israeli sovereignty, and the Arab neighborhoods will be the Palestinian capital, which they will call Jerusalem or whatever they want," said Ramon during an interview.

Positions held by Ramon, a ranking member of Olmert's Kadima party, are largely considered to be reflective of Israeli government policy.

Olmert himself recently questioned whether it was "really necessary" to retain Arab-majority eastern sections of Jerusalem.

Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount –– Judaism's holiest site –– during the 1967 Six Day War. The Palestinians have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital; the area has large Arab neighborhoods, a significant Jewish population and sites holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

About 231,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, and many reside in illegally constructed complexes. The city has an estimated total population of 724,000.

Olmert to blame for dividing Jerusalem?

Ramon listed population statistics as the reason Olmert's government finds it necessary to split Jerusalem.

But WND broke the story that according to Jerusalem municipal employees, during 10 years as mayor of Jerusalem, Olmert instructed city workers not to take action against hundreds of illicit Arab building projects throughout eastern sections of Jerusalem housing over 100,000 Arabs squatting in the city illegally.

The workers and some former employees claim Olmert even instructed city officials to delete files documenting illegal Arab construction of housing units in eastern Jerusalem.

Olmert was Jerusalem mayor from 1993 to 2003. As mayor, he made repeated public statements calling Jerusalem the "eternal and undivided capital" of Israel. Jerusalem municipal employees and former workers, though, paint a starkly contrasting picture of the prime minister.

"He did nothing about rampant illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem while the government cracked down on illegal Jewish construction in the West Bank," said one municipal employee who worked under Olmert. She spoke on condition of anonymity, because she still works for the municipality.

One former municipal worker during Olmert's mayoral tenure told WND he was moved in 1999 to a new government posting after he tried to highlight the illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem. He also spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing for his current job.

Aryeh King, chairman of the Jerusalem Forum, which promotes Jewish construction in Jerusalem, told WND an investigation by his group found Olmert's city hall deleted files documenting hundreds of illegal Arab building projects throughout eastern sections of Jerusalem. He said he forwarded his findings to Israel's state comptroller for investigation.

King also claims Olmert told senior municipal workers not to enforce a ban on illegal Arab buildings.

"Ehud Olmert gave the order not to deal with the problem and not to put Israeli security forces to the duty of taking down the illegal Arab complexes," said King. "Senior municipal workers told me Olmert said not to bother with the illegal Arab homes, because eventually eastern Jerusalem would be given to the Palestinian Authority."

King's report alleges Jerusalem municipal officials erased the files, which detail over 300 cases of Arab construction in eastern Jerusalem deemed illegal starting from 1999. The illegal buildings reportedly were constructed without permits and are still standing. According to law, they must be demolished.

Local media reports investigating King's charges alleged the files were erased by Ofir May, the head of Jerusalem's Department of Building Permits, with the specific intention of allowing the statute of limitation on enforcing the demolition of the illegal construction to run out.

The Jerusalem municipality released a statement in response to the allegations claiming the threat of Arab violence kept it from bulldozing the illegal Arab homes.

"During the years of the intifada, the municipality had difficulty carrying out the necessary level of enforcement in the neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem due to security constraints," the statement read.

King said the hundreds of buildings allegedly detailed in the deleted municipal files house more than 20,000 illegal units.

"We're talking about perhaps 100,000 or more Arabs in eastern Jerusalem living in illegal homes with the government doing nothing about it," King said.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Crystal, March 28, 2008.

This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared yesterday in The Spectator

Trevor Asserson is a British lawyer (who now lives in Israel) who for years has campaigned against the BBC's bias against Israel. He has now produced an even more serious charge against the BBC –– that during the 2006 Lebanon war, the BBC's Arabic service provided a platform for the campaign by Hezbollah and Iran to delegitimise and demonise both the USA and Israel in the eyes of the Arabic speaking world.

With Deena Pinson, he recorded, translated and transcribed the BBC's principal news analysis programme, Hadeeth Al-Sa'a, for a period of four weeks from 19 July to 20 August 2006. Their report (you can down load the pdf at number 6) says that during that period the programme put on 17 spokespeople for Hizbollah and Iran amongst programme guests but only 5 for Israel. It comments:

Many programme guests expressed blatantly and viciously anti American positions... In addition we came across a number of quite extreme statements. For example we were told that the bombing of an electricity station was a 'crime' which is 'unprecedented historically' and we learn that it is US policy 'to crush the Palestinians completely and to take all of their lands.' When comments as extreme as this go uncorrected and unchallenged, the BBC appears to have tossed its moral compass into the waves and completely to have lost its bearings...

The BBC Arabic gives little indication of the destruction, the evacuations and the deaths (often of Israeli Arabs), caused by the thousands of Hizbollah rockets fired into Israel. By contrast some of the language used to describe Israel is hysterical in tone and the translated transcript reads like an Islamist extremist tract.

The implications of such findings are clearly far more serious than merely transgressing the BBC's own impartiality guidelines. When such propaganda is transmitted back into the Arabic-speaking world –– and with the kite-mark of BBC journalistic integrity, no less –– this is bound to incite yet more violence and aggression, turning the BBC effectively into an accomplice of Iran against America and Israel. As the report comments:

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the BBC has in fact become detached from democratic principles and has become a proactive participant in the war of ideas, reflecting back to the Arabic speaking world some if its nastiest views.

Furthermore, since the Arabic service is funded by the Foreign Office it is the British taxpayer who is being turned by the BBC into an unwitting accomplice of Iran in its war against the free world –– and because this is an Arabic service, no-one knows about it. One would have thought that the British government would be using every means possible to broadcast truth into the Arabic-speaking world in order to combat the lies that are inciting the masses against the west. Instead, its principal organ appears to be transmitting to that Arabic-speaking world exactly the same lies and incitement.

Given the current state of world affairs –– and with the BBC just having launched an Arabic TV service to rival al Jazeera –– surely these revelations should now be raised in the House of Commons as a matter of urgency?

Crystal is moderator of EUROPEANS_WHO_SUPPORT_ISRAEL@yahoogroups.com. Contact her at k_hallal@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 28, 2008.

This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post

On April 10 two brothers are scheduled to begin serving prison sentences for a crime they never committed. Yitzhak and Daniel Halamish were convicted of aggravated assault and were sentenced respectively, to seven and eight months in jail.

The two men, who live in Ma'aleh Rehavam south of Bethlehem, were arrested on February 22, 2004. The day before their arrest, the brothers were serving as IDF-trained and armed security guards in their community. They were called by Baruch Feldbaum, the head of security at the neighboring Sde Bar community, to assist him in dispersing an illegal gathering of Beduin in land adjacent to Sde Bar.

Feldbaum's concern over the gathering was heightened because Beduin shepherds are suspected of having carried out a number of unsolved terrorist murders in the area. These include the murder by stoning of 14-year-olds Kobi Mandell and Yosef Ish-Ran on May 8, 2001. Feldbaum feared that the Beduin were conducting surveillance of the community ahead of a future attack.

Armed with their IDF-issued M-16 rifles, augmented in Yitzhak's case by a handgun, the Halamish brothers rushed to the scene. Once they arrived the two were surrounded by some 20 rock and club-wielding Beduin. In an attempt to disperse the hostile crowd, and enable the Halamish brothers to escape unharmed, Feldbaum shot a warning shot into the ground. Yitzhak Halamish similarly shot a warning shot in the air with his handgun. The two brothers then pushed their way out of the crowd.

Later in the day, the Beduin filed a complaint with the police against the three guards. They alleged that Feldbaum and the Halamish brothers all shot at them with their rifles and beat them with their fists.

The issue of who was telling the truth was not a purely subjective question of whom to believe. When the police arrested the Halamish brothers, they also seized their rifles. The Halamish brothers had both denied ever shooting their rifles at the scene. Had the police wished to objectively weigh the credibility of the two sides, they could have conducted ballistic tests of the rifles to determine whether or not they had been used. But they did no such thing. Rather, they indicted Feldbaum and the Halamish brothers for aggravated assault and sent them to trial.

Feldbaum was found guilty based on his admission that he shot his rifle. He was sentenced to nine months in prison. His sentence was later reduced to six months community service by then president Moshe Katsav.

Given their denials of ever shooting their rifles, the Halamish brothers were convicted based on the Magistrate Court judge's decision to believe the Beduins' accusations and reject their defense. In his ruling, Judge Amnon Cohen did not take the police's decision not to conduct ballistic tests of their weapons into consideration. His convictions were upheld on appeal to the Jerusalem District Court. The Supreme Court refused to consider the case.

Attorney Yoram Sheftel, who represented the brothers on appeal, focused his arguments on the police's refusal to conduct ballistic tests of their rifles. According to Sheftel, in standard criminal cases, police refusal to examine potentially exculpatory evidence is grounds for an automatic dismissal of charges. In convicting the Halamish brothers and upholding their convictions, Sheftel argues that the courts ignored standard criminal procedures.

Today, with the courts closed to them, the Halamishs' only hope for avoiding prison is a presidential pardon.

Supporters of the Halamish brothers have launched an interesting campaign to lobby for clemency. They have asked for US citizens to call the office of Israel's military attaché at the Israeli Embassy in Washington and demand that the IDF advance their pardon requests with the Justice Ministry and Beit Hanassi. Since the Halamish brothers were effectively acting as soldiers while performing their security responsibilities, their supporters contend that the IDF is honor-bound to defend them.

But the campaign doesn't stop there. Supporters have also asked US citizens to contact their Congressmen and ask them to send inquiries about the case to the embassy. Finally, they have asked US citizens to contact the State Department and complain that the State Department's Human Rights report on Israel is silent on the government's abuse of Jewish civil rights.

THE NOTION of running a campaign for an Israeli presidential pardon of Israeli citizens in the US is alarming for what it says about the Halamish supporters' perception of Israeli democracy. Specifically, as Datya Yitzhaki from Pidyon Shevuim who has spearheaded the campaign argues, they believe that domestic pressure will have no impact on either Israeli political leaders or on the justice system because in their view the Olmert-Livni-Barak government feels no need to account for its actions to Israeli citizens. Indeed, they contend that the only force that can hold the government and the legal system accountable is international pressure and fear of international condemnation.

Organizations like Women in Green and Pidyon Shevuim who are running the campaign cite as precedent the case of Tzvia Sariel. Sariel, 18, was arrested last December on assault charges. She was accused of attacking Arabs who entered her community of Eilon Moreh on December 4. Sariel was incarcerated for three and a half months.

On March 5, the allegedly assaulted Arabs appeared in Kfar Saba Magistrate Court and recanted their accusations against Sariel. One claimed that since he is illiterate, he had no idea what he was signing when he signed his complaint against her. Yet, despite the fact that the prosecution's case fell apart in front of her, trial judge Nava Bechor ordered a continuance until April 4 and sent Sariel back to prison for another month.

An outcry ensued and activists in the US began calling the embassy and the State Department. On March 19, Bechor dismissed charges against Sariel and sent her home. Her supporters believe that without their US campaign, Sariel would still be sitting in prison for a crime that she didn't commit.

Depressingly, activists fighting against civil rights abuses of right-wing opponents of government policies are probably on to something. Through their own actions, Israel's leaders show daily that they are willing to ignore strategic imperatives and their domestic political opponents. Their actions show that indeed, the only pressure that seems to get them to change course is international pressure.

Take Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for example. Since assuming office two years ago, Livni has repeated at countless public appearances that Israel supports a "two-state solution." By couching her government's support for the establishment of a Palestinian state in these terms, Livni implicitly (and often explicitly) argues that Israel –– which has existed for 60 years and whose legitimacy is rationally inarguable –– can only exist legitimately if a Palestinian state is established. By making this assertion Livni effectively places Israel's right to exist on the negotiating table.

And yet, for his part, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly repudiated Israel's right to exist. By agreeing to negotiate the "two-state solution" with a man who rejects Israel's right to exist, Livni, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and their colleagues are effectively saying that what reality exposes, and Israel's citizenry supports, is irrelevant. The Palestinians alone can confer legitimacy on Israel. And of course, as Abbas has made clear repeatedly, they never will.

In a speech this week to the foreign press corps, Olmert similarly demonstrated that the only support he is interested in securing is foreign support. During his remarks, Olmert claimed that he wishes to conduct negotiations with the Syrian regime towards the surrender of the Golan Heights to Syria. Olmert's statement came just days after President Shimon Peres publicly opposed such negotiations on strategic grounds. In remarks Sunday during a joint press appearance with visiting US Vice President Richard Cheney, Peres explained that Israel has no interest in conducting negotiations with Syria because, "If the Golan is given back, it will boost Iran's influence in Lebanon and the territory will effectively be under Iranian-Syrian control." But when he spoke approvingly of talks aimed at surrendering the Golan Heights to Iranian-Syrian control, Olmert was not concerned with strategic realities. He was similarly unconcerned with what the Israeli public –– which opposes such negotiations –– believes is in Israel's national interest.

When Olmert made that statement he was interested in what the international, overwhelmingly anti-Israel media would think and write about him personally. And so he went on record supporting an initiative that undercuts Israel's national interests.

Finally, there is Barak's behavior in advance of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's arrival in Israel on Saturday night. When Rice was in Israel on March 4, she pressured the Olmert-Livni-Barak government to abandon efforts to secure southern Israel from Hamas's missile campaign in favor of a cease-fire with the Iranian proxy movement. Eager to please her, the government ordered IDF units to beat a speedy retreat from Gaza.

Today, although the government continues to restrain the IDF, the cease-fire is a joke. Over the past two weeks alone, the Palestinians have launched more than a hundred rockets and mortar shells at Israel. They have further augmented their attacks with sniper fire against Israeli farmers tending fields along the border with Gaza. Hamas is openly using the respite to replenish its arsenals and expand its control over the lives of Gaza's citizens. Moreover, unopposed by Israel, Hamas has succeeded in forcing Egypt to release Hamas terror masters from jail, and has convinced Fatah to negotiate the reestablishment of a unity government with Hamas.

Rice is expected to continue pressuring Israel to let Hamas continue to attack at will. She is also expected to attack Olmert, Livni and Barak for the IDF's counter-terror operations in Judea and Samaria.

In an effort to preempt her assault, Barak announced this week that Israel will allow the PA to import some 600 armored personnel carriers from Russia and deploy hundreds of Fatah forces in terror-infested Jenin. He also agreed to ease travel restrictions on Palestinians in Judea and Samaria.

Barak knows full well that these actions will imperil Israel's security. His own people refer to the moves as "calculated risks." He knows full well that opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu was right when he warned on Wednesday that "those weapons will be turned against IDF soldiers." He knows that by curbing counter-terror operations he will imperil Israeli civilians. But here too, Israel's inherent right to self-defense and the government's sovereign duty to secure the country and its citizens is ignored by the government in order to win points with foreigners whose interests are far from identical to Israel's.

THE HALAMISH brothers' supporters are not people who reject Israel's legitimacy. They certainly would never deny its right to defend itself. Indeed, they are among the most vocal opponents of foreign onslaughts against Israel.

It is a sad commentary on the state of Israeli democracy that patriotic Israelis have come to the disheartening view that their only chance of receiving justice in Israel is to take their campaign to foreign governments. By inducing them to feel this way, the Olmert-Livni-Barak government is taking another step towards the delegitimization of Israeli sovereignty.

From: Nadia & David Matar [mailto:nmatar@netvision.net.il]
Subject: Petition for Halamish brothers

Please sign and forward to all your lists

Petition on the web:
English: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Halamish
Hebrew: http://www.atzuma.co.il/petition/halamish/

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Stand With Us, March 28, 2008.

The International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) will be holding a meeting at the Ramallah Center for Human Rights Studies (RCHRS), March 31 to April 2, 2008: "Libraries from a Human Rights Perspective."

Despite its name and stated mission, the RCHRS is not a human rights group. It is a political organization that promotes anti-Israel distortions and propaganda, incites intolerance, and praises terrorists.

Furthermore, the RCHRS is silent about the Palestinians' destruction of libraries, book stores and internet cafes in Gaza, and about the censorship in the PA, which should be a central IFLA concern. The IFLA should not affiliate with a group that runs counter to its own mission and violates its founding purpose: to "promote high standards of provision and delivery of library and information services."

In holding this conference with RCHRS, the IFLA is dragging its members into a highly charged, anti- Israel propaganda campaign, endorsing extremist positions, and implicitly supporting the suppression of information services.

Please write a protest letter to:
Claudia Lux, President
International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA)
P.O. Box 95312
2509 CH The Hague
E-mail: IFLA@ifla.org

Additional information for your letter:

The following information is contained in NGO Monitor's recent analysis of the Ramallah Center for Human Rights Studies:

"NGO Monitor's analysis demonstrates that, despite its stated mission to develop internal norms of Palestinian democracy and respect for human rights, some of its statements focus on condemnations of Israel, and its activities often contribute to conflict and fail to condemn violence. For example, RCHRS has often referred to Palestinian terrorists as 'martyrs'. Following the March 2002 suicide bombing attacks and the Israeli response, RCHRS issued a statement promoting the false claim that Israel committed "massacres" in Jenin and Nablus. RCHRS has also accused Israel of 'terrirorist [sic] crimes,' and making children the 'sacrifice for the racial hatred [sic].'

As a political organization, RCHRS consistently calls for ' pressure on the Israeli Government' to 'deter it from violating the international law,' and has stated that ' all world countries should adhere to their ethical and political responsibilities in putting an end to the Israeli racial aggression.' Such rhetoric clearly reflects an extreme anti-Israel political position, which ignores RCHRS' mandate to promote 'a culture of tolerance and respect for human rights,' and does not contribute to mutual understanding and conflict resolution.

In addition, RCHRS is an active member of the the Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations Network (PNGO), which plays a major role in promoting campaigns to delegitimize and demonize Israel. These activities include the NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban conference, which promoted demonization and boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel, and has been widely renounced as a form of political warfare."

Contact StandWithUs by email at info@standwithus.com and visit their website: web: http://www.standwithus.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Elan Journo, March 28, 2008.

On his recent visit to the Middle East, Vice President Cheney voiced the Bush administration's belief that a Palestinian state is "long overdue" and vowed to help make that goal a reality. Many conservatives and liberals agree with the administration that America should help fulfill the long-deferred Palestinian aspirations to statehood. The idea is that in doing so we would go a long way toward dousing the flames of Islamist terrorism.

But does U.S. backing for Palestinian statehood advance our security?

Only if you think we're better off fostering a new terrorist state.

That may seem excessively harsh given President Bush's mantra that Palestinians just want "the opportunity to use [their talents and] gifts to better their own lives and build a future for their children." The Bush line we keep hearing is that the terrorists and their supporters are but a fringe element that will be marginalized under the new state, which will coexist "side by side in peace" with Israel and the Western world.

But listen to Palestinian clerics at Friday sermons, calling for violent attacks on Israel. Look at the lurid posters in the homes and shops of ordinary Palestinians, passionately glorifying "martyrs" and terrorist kingpins. Look at their coordinated digging of tunnels to smuggle in weapons and explosives. Look at the popular collusion with Islamist militants and their stream of recruits. Recall the years of ferocious attacks against Israeli towns.

If the mass of Palestinians just want peace and a better life, they would not despise and war against the only state in the region, Israel, that protects individual rights and that offers a standard of living far superior to (even the richest) Arab regimes. They would be far better off, freer and safer, if they put away their rocks, bullets and dynamite belts and sought to live and work in Israel (as some once did).

Instead, they flood the streets to protest negotiations about peaceful co-existence with Israel. Ideologically, their dominant factions are the Islamic totalitarians of Hamas and the nationalist terrorists of Fatah. These differ only in their form of dictatorship –– religious or ethnic. Both promise their followers, one way or another, to wipe out Israel.

That hostility to Israel, the only free nation in the Middle East, should make any U.S. president stand firmly against the Palestinian cause. Particularly in a post-9/11 world, Washington should recognize that U.S. security is strengthened by preventing Islamist terrorists from securing another stronghold and training ground.

Given the overwhelming evidence that it would undermine U.S. security, what explains the Bush administration's come-hell-or-high-water promise to do "everything we can" to back a Palestinian state? It is the administration's belief that America has a duty to ease the suffering of the world's wretched, regardless of the cost in lives to us.

That's why, after Palestinians brought Hamas to power in a landslide, Washington responded with "compassion" for their "humanitarian" needs. Of course the United States and its European allies felt compelled to "isolate" the Hamas regime by cutting off direct aid to the Palestinian Authority. But they refused to believe the Palestinians themselves should be held responsible for how they voted, because they're already dirt poor. This meant suspending our judgment and absolving Palestinians of culpability for choosing murderers to lead them. So, despite the embargo on aid to the Hamas-led government, in 2006 U.S. aid to Palestinians increased by 17 percent to $468 million, propping up their terrorist proto-state.

This policy's result is to endorse, facilitate, and vitalize Palestinian aggression. We've seen the unleashing of a popularly supported Hamas-Hezbollah war against Israel in 2006 and ongoing attacks springing from Gaza. Al Qaeda has reportedly already set up shop alongside other jihadists in the Palestinian territories. Just imagine the mushrooming of terrorist training camps and explosives factories under a sovereign Palestinian state. Imagine how emboldened jihadists will feel operating under a regime that Washington has created and blessed.

This is the price of a policy based not on furthering U.S. security, but on undeserved pity. This is the price of willfully ignoring the vile nature of Palestinian goals, treating these hostile people as above reproach and rewarding their irrationality.

Isn't it time we demand a policy that puts our security first?

Elan Journo is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand –– best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism. Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, March 28, 2008.

This was written by Paul Bogdanor and it appeared on the IsraCampus website
http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/Editorial %20-%20Paul%20Bogdanor%20-%20Israel%20Shahak.htm. The original article has live links to additional material.

Paul Bogdanor is the editor, with Edward Alexander, of The Jewish Divide Over Israel, due in paperback later this month.

"And then they come, 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. Of course the others are vermin, but this one is an A-1 Jew." –– Henrich Himmler

"My book is dedicated to Israel Shahak, who is in fact a Jewish person." –– David Duke

In the late Israel Shahak, the political heirs of Heinrich Himmler discovered their very own A-1 Jew. They elevated him to that status over three decades, while he served on the faculty of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Israel Shahak was a professor of organic chemistry. In his spare time he was a disseminator of antisemitic lies. Almost every falsehood invoked by the Nazis to justify the Holocaust was eventually ratified by this tenured academic at one of Israel's most prestigious institutions.

According to Shahak, the Jews think of nothing but making money for the benefit of the Jewish state ("The force of Jewish devotion in assembling money is thought to be infinite"). According to Shahak, the Jews plan to dominate much of the world through an Israeli empire ("extending from 'Algeria or Morocco' from the west to China in the east, and from Kenya or even South Africa in the south to the USSR in the north"). According to Shahak, the Jews facilitate the spread of vice in order to enslave the masses ("Part of the motivation" must be "encouraging drug addiction and thus promoting political apathy").

Shahak openly collaborated with the Israeli Communist Party and its Frankenstein product, Matzpen. The Communist Party was, of course, a tool of the genocidal Soviet dictatorship, while Matzpen was even more bloodthirsty:

If the Israeli Jewish masses are not split from Zionism...then there will be another Holocaust. Eventually, the Arab revolution is going to win; if the masses of the Israeli Jews are not incorporated in it, they will necessarily be consumed by it.

Shahak not only raised no objection to this Hitlerian outburst; he joined its author in usurping control of the once-respectable Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights.

Shahak was the first Israeli Jew to be published by an organ of the PLO. He was a constant contributor to the PLO's main English-language journal. There he disgorged a stream of antisemitic poison. He claimed that all Zionists believe in "the rightness of biblically justified genocide," which he called "the other Holocaust." He vilified Jewish "Holocaust-mongers" who believe that "killing many children is just if it is done for Jewish benefit." He announced that "Israeli Jews, and with them most Jews throughout the world, are undergoing a process of Nazification." He asserted that the Nuremberg Laws "are infinitely more moderate than the 'Gentile' regulations in Talmudic Law." And he defamed "the Jewish establishment in the USA and its intellectual slaves," adding that "Jewish terror is very kosher in the USA!"

Throughout his second career as an antisemitic propagandist for the would-be destroyers of his country, Israel Shahak was protected by officials at the Hebrew University. The excuses continued in the face of mounting public outrage. Yediot Ahronot asked why "someone like Israel Shahak is employed by our national university" when his conduct was "tantamount to treason." In Ha'aretz, the Dean of Tel Aviv University's Law School, Amnon Rubinstein, found "plenty of evidence" for treason charges. He noted that Shahak "does not even support those who want a simple war against Israel, but rather those who want the annihilation of its people."

Rubinstein stressed that Shahak's employers were also his accomplices:

In my mind, the most serious aspect in the Shahak affair concerns his high-ranking position at the Hebrew University...A tenured job at the university does not mean that it is possible to join with murderers while retaining one's job...

The Hebrew University does not act as one should expect of an academic institution. Worse still: it promoted Shahak to the rank of associate professor at the beginning of this year in the midst of his hate campaign.

But the campus bureaucrats were unmoved. The sole issue was "freedom of speech," declared the Rector of the University. Academics could not be disciplined for inciting ethnic hatred and the destruction of their country. As for Shahak's recent promotion, this merely reflected the merits of his chemistry classes.

Shahak delivered his own response in the newspaper of the Communist Party: "The majority of the Jewish public in Israel (and also out of it) believes that only Jews are human beings...according to Jewish Talmudic law, legally valid in Israel today, any Gentile woman is considered as impure, slave, Gentile and whore."

As this example illustrates, Shahak saw no need to pretend, for the benefit of Western audiences, that the target of his hatred was "Zionism." He always insisted that Israel was evil because it was Jewish. In his scurrilous tract Jewish History, Jewish Religion, he warned that Israel's Jewish character was a danger to "all other peoples and states in the Middle East and beyond." Judaism was the focus of evil on earth: not only had it created "one of the most totalitarian societies in the whole history of mankind," even its beliefs were "motivated by the spirit of profit." So malevolent are the Jews, wrote Shahak, that they secretly worship the Devil:

both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands, uttering a special blessing. On one of these two occasions he is worshipping God, by promoting the divine union of Son and Daughter; but on the other he is worshipping Satan...

Shahak also found excuses for the near-genocidal Chmielnicki pogroms, which he classified as a "revolt of the oppressed." According to Shahak, when the typical pogromist decided to murder Jews, it was because "Jews profited from his state of slavery and exploitation."

Needless to say, Jewish History, Jewish Religion was endorsed by Jew-haters everywhere. "I urge all of you to forego a movie or a dinner and treat yourself to this book" (Ingrid Rimland). "It is a volume which belongs in the library of every informed student of the world's affairs" (Russ Granata). But it would be wrong to assume that admirers of the Third Reich have only just discovered Shahak. His services to these Nazis began decades ago.

Ernst Zundel is the author of The Hitler We Loved and Why. He has been described as one of the largest distributors of Nazi literature on the planet. After deportation from Canada to his native Germany, he is now serving a prison sentence on multiple counts of incitement to racial hatred. Ernst Zundel proclaims that Israel Shahak was one of his idols from the late 1960s. Meetings with Shahak and other anti-Zionist Jews "opened up an entirely new world for me, the young German immigrant to Canada." At a public lecture in the late 1970s, "Ernst and his friends demonstrated with signs outside the hall in support of Shahak." According to Zundel, "We had a personal chat before the meeting." On Shahak's death his affection was undiminished:

Israel Shahak was quietly heroic. Decent people owe him a debt of gratitude. He was a voice of reason and decency in a country where "the people of the lie" live and hold sway –– and, sadly, also govern. We will sorely miss him and his honesty.

Shahak is applauded scores of times on the hatemongering Zundelsite. To my knowledge, the Hebrew University never investigated the links between one of its most prominent professors and one of the world's most notorious Nazis.

The story is by no means unique. "Dr. Israel Shahak risked all to bring what he calls 'decent humanity' to Judaism and the Zionist State," declaimed the American racist David Duke, paying tribute to his hero for unmasking "hateful Judaic laws...that permit Jews to cheat, to steal, to rob, to kill, to rape, to lie, even to enslave Christians." Shahak received pride of place, alongside Chomsky and Finkelstein, in Duke's pantheon of Jews who "expose the truth about Zionism and Jewish supremacism." Duke's collected antisemitic ravings gave further evidence of his esteem:

I will be the first to acknowledge that not all Jews support or share in this supremacism. In fact, a number of courageous Jews suffer greatly for opposing it. This book is dedicated to the memory of one of them: an Israeli Professor, Dr. Israel Shahak...He persuasively argued that unless both Jews and Gentiles courageously stand up against this supremacist agenda and its power, it will continue to pose a severe danger to Jews and Gentiles alike.

In other words, an academic employed for thirty years by the Hebrew University had inspired a former commander of the Ku Klux Klan to pen the English-language sequel to Mein Kampf.

Today the Blood Libels of Israel Shahak are available on almost any page on almost any Nazi website: AAARGH, Rense.com, Ziopedia, Jewish Tribal Review, Jew Watch, and others too numerous to count. Shahak has received hundreds of accolades from the aspiring death camp guards of Stormfront. He has been praised to the skies by the frustrated death camp deniers at the Journal of Historical Review. Supporters of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust can consult Shahak on The Laws Against Non-Jews. Elsewhere antisemites can read the full text of Shahak's Jewish History, Jewish Religion ("Israel Shahak Speaks the Truth!") or they can sample Shahak's views about The Jewish Hatred Towards Christianity ("anti-Christian feelings are literally exploding in Israel"), The Jewish Laundry of Drug Money ("New York Jews" play "the predominant part") and The Jews Who Run USA ("these 'Holocaust memories' are a fake").

In light of the above, the Hebrew University may want to reconsider its assessment that the memory of Israel Shahak's chemistry lessons will outlast his legacy to international Nazism.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 28, 2008.


The Olmert regime toys with its public to win approval, for a time. It gears the IDF up for a major offensive. Before the offensive gets far along, the regime orders the Army to reduce forces and return. "'Every time we embark on such a campaign, at whose conclusion the previous situation is restored, our deterrence is eroded a little further,' admits a senior officer." (IMRA, 3/7.)


Some Mideastern countries have been setting up a joint power grid. The Jordanian parliament voted to reject energy cooperation with Israel (IMRA, 3/7).

Jordan is cited as one of the countries that made peace with Israel. Don't count on Jordanian restraint if Israel were having a difficult time in a war.


A.I. condemned a terrorist murder of eight Jerusalem civilians. It described the deliberate assault on them as a flagrant violation of international law.

Then it asserted that any Israel counter-attack must not endanger Arab civilians. That, too, it described as an abuse of international law (IMRA, 3/7).

A.I. is misrepresenting international law. International law forbids targeting of civilians or launching an assault on an enemy force that would kill civilians disproportionately in relation to the military objective. It does not forbid combat that incidentally would endanger civilians but a small number in relation to the military objective. Israeli counter-attacks do not inflict many civilian casualties. Israel takes precautions not to. When it does injure civilians, responsibility lies with Hamas, which endangers those civilians by keeping its forces among them.

The logic of international law is clear. Since there is no ambiguity, A.I.'s false statement about the IDF must be due to bias. Its operating principle is that Islamists may get away with abusing international law and kill Israelis.


Abbas had a good analysis of Hamas' potential for seizing Gaza, but took no steps to stop it. His lieutenants were mutual rivals over jobs and money, subversive, without ideology. Still are (IMRA, 3/7).

His P.A. has made some economic reform but no political or military reform. No wonder Israeli experts reckon that Hamas would take over the P.A. if the IDF left!


Robert Murdoch owns Sky News. Its Israel correspondent was observed by a Jerusalem Post editor mis-reporting an Israeli counter-attack in Gaza.

The attack caused about a hundred deaths. The original news sources indicated that many and probably most were gunmen. The correspondent saw those sources! The P.A. claimed, as usual, that half were civilians. (It mislabels members of terrorist bands as civilians. The P.A. lies for psychological warfare.) Murdoch's man posted it as a hundred civilians. He gave no figures terrorist casualties. That makes the assault seem totally against civilians and illegal.

The assault was aimed at crews bombarding Siderot and Ashkelon in the Negev portion of Israel. Sky News emphasized a false notion that those cities, although populated by Israelis, are not in the recognized bounds of Israel. His focus on their allegedly being outside the State minimizes impression of injustice being done to Israel. His mistake was surprising, in view of the common knowledge that Hamas has been committing aggression against Israeli cities

The Israeli editor suggested to Sky News' foreign and home desks that their later edition correct their earlier one. Sky News did not do so.

Familiar with Sky News, the editor does not find it biased. Misperceptions, however, the media is full of. These misperceptions favor the Arabs and undermines Israel's moral case. Abbas supports the Hamas line.

Israel's moral case is excellent, not that the news services present it. Israel withdrew from Gaza, to let the Arabs live in peace, bring in investors, and show that they could manage a state and could be entrusted with other territories. (PM Olmert is eager to relinquish them. That is not moral, but it is innocent of intent to harm the Arabs.). Instead, the people voted for Hamas, which killed many Arab rivals and attacks Israel, claiming it must acquire more territory by force.

Israel let supplies into Gaza, but Hamas smuggled in weapons and built a terrorist army. When Israel took some counter-measures, the Arabs complained that Gaza is a big prison. Hamas fired upon Israeli civilians and used its own civilians as human shields. They celebrated when they killed civilians and complained when they lost civilians. A competent, accurate, and fair media would present the war as an Israeli defense that strives to minimize casualties against jihadi aggression that strives to maximize civilian casualties on both sides, not just show bloody footage that rouses indignation against Israel.

The answer is for Israel to offer a reliable news service with explanations. Israeli politicians, who make Israel sound bad, should learn how to present the issues. It is time to challenge the Islamist narrative. The lack of challenge helps Hamas and Hizbullah recruit! (IMRA, 3/8.) Israelis lack self-respect.


Israel has a life-and-death struggle over foreign policy and critical domestic issues. Instead of giving those issues full attention, Israeli politicians use their government to distribute revenues for the support of interest groups. "The Olmert team would rather stay in power for an extra month than entertain action for the Jewish State's survival for years to come." They don't want to think about the real issues (IMRA, 3/8).

It is not just a lust for power and the concomitant power. It's also Olmert's means of evading imprisonment for corruption. It's not just that. Olmert and his associates are post-Zionists. They don't care about Jewish rights, duties, people, and state, and they lack scruples.

The use of government to maintain political power is galloping along in the US presidential election, too. Although faced with large deficits, New York State politicians want greatly to increase instead of to decrease spending.


The P.A. daily accorded the murderer its highest accolade, that of martyr (IMRA, 3/9). The family of the slain murderer wanted to celebrate in Jordan and in Jerusalem, as a "brave" martyrdom, their relative's shooting unarmed students, during which he eventually got slain. They set up a tent from which they raised banners of Hamas and Hizbullah.

Authorities in Jordan took down banners and tent. No recognition or advocacy of of terrorist organizations there. Israeli authorities let the enemy banners wave for days, until protests prompted them to follow Jordan's example (IMRA, 3/6).

The Israeli government prides itself on decency, but how decent was it to let enemy banners rise in its capital to celebrate the murder of innocent Israelis? That is the shame of appeasement. It also is further indication that the regime is maneuvering to get at least that part of its capital into enemy hands.


The first time, it had taken a UNO statement out of context, so Israel would seem specifically to have attacked civilians. The current apology came after CAMERA caught BBC falsely claiming that right after the Jerusalem Arab murdered eight yeshiva students, Israel bulldozed his house. Israel didn't. The BBC used an eight-year-old photo of some other house being bulldozed (Arutz-7, 3/24). Israel's Security Min. suggests deporting the families of terrorists (Arutz-7, 3/9) who celebrate the terrorism. BBC no longer deserves its reputation.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, March 28, 2008.

This was written by Yossi Alpher and it appeared on the bitterlemons.org website.

Economic Incentives Have Little Effect on Palestinian Attitudes Toward Israel –– Yossi Alpher (bitterlemons.org)

Since 1967 virtually all Israeli governments have implemented a broad spectrum of economic carrots and sticks with the objective of manipulating the Palestinian political will –– with little or no effect on the overall attitude of Palestinians toward Israelis and the conflict.

Since 1994, the international community has invested huge sums in developing a Palestinian infrastructure and security services and propping up the governing bureaucracy of the PA. But the benefits for the political process are at best debatable.

Indeed, arguably the huge sums of international aid showered upon the Palestinian leadership over the past decade and a half have been an important factor in generating the corruption that caused Palestinians to install a Hamas leadership two years ago.

To be sure, economic prosperity is as good for Palestinians as it is for everyone else. But there is no positive and demonstrable cause-and-effect connection between prosperity and a reduction in the inclination to engage in terrorism: witness the outbreak of the second intifada in 2000 at a time of relative Palestinian economic prosperity.

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 28, 2008.

The stupidity alluded to here pertains both to US and Israeli policy. And it is with regard to the practice of continuing to arm and train Fatah forces in Judea and Samaria.

There is some very irrational notion that it is necessary to "strengthen" Fatah so it can prevent a Hamas takeover. However, the evidence from the recent past provides absolutely no reason to believe that giving Fatah more weapons and more training is going to turn them into a fighting machine that will keep Hamas at bay and that will help to keep Israel safe from terrorists. In fact, the opposite is glaringly obvious to anyone who wishes to pay attention.

Repeatedly over the years since the PA was established, there have been incidents in which weapons and training provided by the US with Israeli sanction were turned against Israel. The very first time this happened was in 1996 and the severity of such situations increased with the second intifada starting in 2000.


But that's just one factor of concern. The other is the vast likelihood that these weapons will end up in Hamas hands. That's precisely what happened in Gaza. Fatah was heavily armed by the US so that it might stand against Hamas. When Hamas routed Fatah, they acquired these weapons, which are now being utilized against Israel, and which will make that eventual major operation in Gaza more difficult than it otherwise would have been. Hamas is now in possession of such Fatah equipment as machine guns, thousands of assault rifles, personnel carriers and night vision goggles.


What must be understood here –– what is of MAJOR concern –– is the fact that Fatah was not defeated in Gaza because of Hamas superiority. Fatah had better training, better equipment, and a larger number of troops in the field. What they lacked was the will to fight Hamas.

Consider this information from my report on Fatah from in January:

After the rout, The Observer interviewed Abu Obieda, head of the military wing of Hamas, who said, "I expected it to take one month. That is what we planned for and trained for. But then at the beginning all of the Fatah commanders escaped their compounds in ambulances and left for Egypt. They left their men to die. Who could do that?"

Amir Tahiri, reporting in the NY Post, confirmed this, saying that even the four chief bases, claimed to be impregnable, fell within hours as the defenders fled, leaving their equipment behind.

While according to the Economist, Abbas did not declare a state of emergency until his own Gaza house (very large and elaborate, it should be noted) was being ransacked. Middle level officers complained about a lack of leadership: "We had no orders to fight except in self defense."


That was in Gaza. Now in Judea and Samaria, even US generals have begun to complain about the lack of effort on the part of the PA to take on terrorism. This is something I've been writing about for months: the reports that security officers say they aren't given orders to shoot at terrorists, etc.

This pattern persists because Fatah (the PA) has no stomach for this fight. As they see it, Hamas and Fatah are all part of the Palestinian people, and there is at heart no disapproval of Hamas terrorism within the ranks of Fatah. The goals are the same, it is only the methods that vary, like a "good cop, bad cop" routine.

Months ago the assessment of Israeli intelligence was that Hamas was as strong as Fatah in Judea and Samaria. Since then, Hamas has strengthened further and it is clearly understood that only the IDF stands between the PA and a Hamas takeover.


Yet, in spite of this, the US, which saw its policy fail so badly in Gaza, and which is in possession of information regarding Hamas strength in Judea and Samaria, and PA failure to fight terrorism... the US decides to adopt precisely the same policy that backfired in Gaza and to back the same losers all over again. The US is funding weapon supplies and training for the PA.

Where are the brains of Rice and company? Where is Bush in all of this? They are setting themselves up for a situation that is doomed to fail. They are making it possible for Hamas to secure better weapons than they would otherwise have had, and ultimately they –– US officials! –– are going to be responsible for Israeli deaths.

And those who head the Israeli government? They behave like US lackeys, instead of officials of a sovereign state. They give statements about how Israeli security must be their first concern, but they don't act in accord with these statements.


Now it is in the news that Defense Minister Barak has expressed to the US concern that Hamas may take over Judea and Samaria, and that Israeli gestures to the US may backfire.

Well, good morning! But why didn't he register this concern BEFORE making the gestures. Why didn't he flatly refuse to make the gestures (which are blatantly said to be gestures to the US) because his first responsibility is to protect Israel?

Yet Israel has signed on to allowing the PA to have armored personnel carriers, night vision goggles and a whole lot more.

All in the interests of peace, you understand.


Rice is due here tomorrow night. She is coming to push that moribund "peace process." And we must ask, here too, why she thinks Fatah is a viable peace partner for Israel, given the parameters outlined above.

What is particularly infuriating is that she is being "even handed," criticizing both Israel and the PA for "failures" to live up to their commitments. But what she criticizes Israel for are such things as not taking down "illegal outposts," while with the PA the criticism is not fighting terrorism.

These are not parallel issues. The bottom line is that without an elimination of terrorist infrastructure there will be no peace here. Everything else must be on hold until that is accomplished.

As to the issues of communities established beyond the Green Line being an "obstacle to peace," I will discuss this further in the next posting.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Caplan, March 27, 2008.

MK Ariel Slams Barak's Decision on Yesha Cars

This comes from Arutz-Sheva

(IsraelNN.com) MK Uri Ariel (NU/NRP) slammed Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Thursday for his ministry's refusal to help cover the cost of reinforced windows for private vehicles belonging to Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria. The decision to stop assisting residents who wish to reinforce their windows was made despite the fact that attacks on Israeli drivers have increased dramatically in recent months, and have occasionally resulted in serious injury.

"With one hand the Defense Minister gives weapons to the terrorists known as Palestinian policemen, and with the other he chokes every possibility of minimal protection," Ariel said. Ariel called on the government to immediately make money available to cover the cost of protecting Jews in Judea and Samaria.

Govt. Stops Funding Protection for Yesha Drivers

(IsraelNN.com) The government has stopped providing financial assistance for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria who wish to protect their vehicles from rock and Molotov cocktail attacks, residents reported Thursday. Several residents who planned to purchase or repair special reinforced windows on their vehicles in recent days were surprised to discover that they were expected to cover the entire cost of the repair work.

A repairman from Jerusalem said he had asked the Defense Ministry if he could forward his customers the government's share of the funding with the knowledge that he would be reimbursed. Officials refused his offer, he said, and said they could not promise that the funding would ever arrive.

Residents pointed out that the apparent change in policy came as terrorist groups in Judea and Samaria were increasing the number of attacks on Israeli drivers in the area. One driver accused the government of deliberately failing to protect Jewish drivers in hopes that Jewish residents would begin to leave Judea and Samaria by choice.

YESHA Council Chair: 'MK Vilan's Demand is Plain Evil'

(IsraelNN.com) Chairman of the Judea, Samaria and Gaza (YESHA) Council, Dani Dayan, called the demand voiced by some far-left Knesset members to evict former residents of Gush Katif from their new homes "evil for evil's sake."

Defense Minister Ehud Barak issued orders allowing five Jewish families from the demolished town of Morag to live in prefab homes in the town of Teneh-Omarim, near Hevron. The governmental permits, issued nearly three years after the families were taken from their Gaza homes, were harshly criticized by the left-wing Meretz party on Monday.

Reacting to MK Vilan's demand that the government reverse itself again, and thus expel the families from the new homes, Dayan said, "How much evil can one put up with? MK Vilan's demand to again expel families that were already expelled from their homes once is not a legitimate political position, it is rather hardheartedness and evilness for their own sake."

Daisy Stern commented: "Stone-proof windows on cars is an EXPENSIVE and ESSENTIAL item. I had mine replaced last year. They have to be replaced about every 3 years, because they are made of plastic and they get dull after a while, and then you stop being able to see through them, which is obviously hazardous on the road. So it is a necessity, not a luxury: without this stone proofing, every stone thrown on a car can result in severe injuries, be they from glass shards, cuts, blindness, head injuries from the rock itself, and of course, loss of control of the vehicle. To withhold this from residents of Yesha is clearly criminal and shows evil intent."

Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, March 27, 2008.

This was written by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz and it appeared in Arutz-Sheva
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125685 Yekutiel Ben-Yaakov, formerly known as Mike Guzofsky, moved to Israel from New York. He ran the Hatikva Jewish Identity Center for one of the Jewish Defense League branches in New York City.

(IsraelNN.com) Yekutiel Ben-Yaakov, convicted over a private referendum he conducted, was sentenced on Tuesday to 200 hours of community service, along with a suspended sentence of six months in jail. Ben-Yaakov's parole period is to last for three years. About 50 demonstrators, including some musicians playing protest songs, showed up outside the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court on Tuesday, where sentencing took place.

Ben-Yaakov, of Kfar Tapuach, was convicted for "incitement to racism" as a result of a street referendum he designed prior to Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. His referendum asked which was preferable: then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Disengagement Plan, which would expel Jews from Gaza and Samaria, or an alternate plan to expel hostile Arabs from Israel. More than 100,000 people from Israel's major cities participated in the referendum, with over 90 percent saying they would rather expel hostile Arabs.

"It's outrageous that a country that calls itself a democracy can put someone on trial for making a referendum," Ben-Yakov told the press before sentencing. "A referendum is the purest form of democracy."

Ben-Yaakov believes he was charged with incitement not because of the nature of the referendum, but because it demonstrated to the government to what extent the Disengagement Plan went against the will of the majority.

Participants in Ben-Yaakov's referendum were given a ballot card asking if they "prefer the 'Sharon/Peres Disengagement Plan,' which includes transferring Gaza and parts of the West Bank to Palestinian control and expulsion of all Jews who live there. Or do you prefer the 'Jewish Alternative Disengagement Plan,' which includes annexing these territories and expulsion of the Arabs living there to an area outside Israel, deep beyond a safe security buffer zone?"

Jerusalem-based Human rights activist Attorney Irving Gendelman calls into question the validity of the incitement law and asks, "Would a person be culpable if his alleged act of incitement was intended only to express an opinion on political issues inherent in a democratic country?" Gendelman says that use of the law at the expense of basic human rights inclusive of the right to democratically oppose governmental political policies "is an anathema." He concludes, "In Israel, it is debatable whether full freedom of expression within democratic norms is permitted by the Israeli Government."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jenny Weisberg, March 27, 2008.

Shalom Everybody! Enjoy this week's 2-minute Real Jewish Moms videos! Don't forget to pass them on to another Jewish mom today to make her smile...

Thank G-d, over the past two weeks over 8000 women have viewed "What am I Living For?" and hundreds more women are watching it every day. I want to thank each and every one of you who took the time to forward the video to your friends for helping to spread the video's message to Jewish moms all over the world. You made my dream a reality. (Didn't see "What am I Living For?" Go to

Enjoy! Chana/Jenny Weisberg, www.JewishMom.com

Video #1 –– Real Jewish Moms: The Goal
Description: Real Jewish Moms: The Goal
Description: "When you wake up at 3 AM to care for a child who has just wet his bed, you ask yourself, "'Where is the meaning?'" This is the question that Ricka Van Leeuwen asks and answers in this inspiring video

Video #2 –– Real Jewish Moms: The Goal
Description: Pregnant? Jewish? You must watch this movie.

The Jewish Press on Real Jewish Moms:

"Motherhood is undoubtedly a holy task: this is the secret revealed in Chana Jenny Weisberg's work. Besides her unique book, her series of two-minute films called "The Real Jewish Moms Film Series" on her website www.JewishMom.com, help mothers sense spiritual bliss in the midst of their demanding, all-absorbing and often difficult responsibilities." –– Professor Livia Bitton-Jackson

Chana Jenny Weisberg is author of One Baby Step at a Time: Seven Secrets of Jewish Motherhood (Urim), Expecting Miracles: Finding Meaning and Spirituality in Pregnancy through Judaism (Urim), and creator of the popular website JewishMom.com Contact her at jenny_weisberg@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emmanuel A. Winston, March 27, 2008.

When the 8 Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva students were murdered on March 6th by an Israeli Arab Muslim, the pro-forma condolences poured in from many nations. For all they meant, they could have pre-printed a form with blank areas for the dates of future massacres with a blank for when and where it happened.

I am sick to death of the phony expressions of sorrow from President Bush, Secretary Rice and the other nations –– while they send a king's treasure to the Terrorists, in addition to arming and training them. The first television coverage on March 6th (which was quickly terminated) showed the riotous celebrations in Gaza, with firing of weapons that sounded like firecrackers and handing out of candy (made with the sugar supplied in humanitarian shipments from Israel).

Even the be-suited Terrorist Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) condemned the "successful" Terrorist while his Fatah has major Terrorists operating under his banner –– including Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigade, Tanzim, PFLP, Islamic Jihad –– with significant input by Hezb'Allah, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, among others. I expect Fatah and Hamas to re-united soon in their joint goal to wipe out the Jewish State.

But, Bush must have looked into Abu Mazen's eyes and seen his soul –– as he did with Putin, and saw nothing but good in his "Moderate" soul.

Condi's condolences are not worth the price of an Email, given her deep antipathy for the Jewish nation, Israel, and her people. Condi says (she is still reliving her childhood) where the southern whites were savaging her black brethren. With all that bile souring her stomach, she had to regurgitate somewhere, so she picked on the Jews. In her warped psychology, Jews looked like her southern whites and the Muslim Terrorists became her blacks.

Condi, you had better keep your condolence babble inside your head rather than pretend you care about Jews being murdered by Islamic Arab Palestinians.

AS fo the nations who haunt the U.N., better they also keep their condolences for the newspapers and TV. Their knee-jerk, pro-forma condolence cards have become like a Hallmark holiday greeting card because the Terror, Rocket and Missile attacks happen so often.

As for Israel, she should return their phony expressions of condolence, marked: "Return to Sender" and ask: "What are you going to do to stop the killings?".

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, March 27, 2008.

How do we cut down on honor murders in the West? According to some people, you do whatever it takes to keep the girls from dishonoring their families so that their families do not have to honor-murder them.

According to the New York Times, (www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/26muslim.html) "home schooling" the girls in America, re-creating a feudal, rural, parallel universe in California in which girls and women are kept hidden and apart, is the sensible, merciful alternative to honor murders in The New World.

At a time when Islamists are at full jihadic throttle, The New York Times features a mild and lovely –– a truly non-judgmental article about the proliferation of home schooling among Muslim communities in America.

How can anyone criticize home schooling? It's a venerable, Super-American Back-to-the-Land and Back-to-the-Bible custom. Well, according to the article, this folksy custom might be under serious advisement since Osama Bin Laden's American mouthpiece, Adam Gadahn, was himself home schooled in rural California.

But really: How can I criticize the tendency of immigrants to cling to their customs and their faiths? Isn't America's history one in which successive waves of immigrants retained their ethnic and religious identities –– while their children and grand-children became integrated into American culture? And, don't we still allow religious communities to keep themselves apart and to train their women to be docile, modest, family-oriented servants of both men and God?

Well yes, but I have always protested keeping women down in the name of religion, and have been quick to applaud the accomplishments of religious (and anti-religious) women who enter the modern professions, wage feminist battles against violence against women within their communities, and who also become leaders and authorities in their various faiths, both secular and religious.

So, why is the New York Times making so subtle and so powerful an alliance with Islamists against women?

The way propaganda works is through persistence, subtlety, and images. Every week, sometimes every day, the Times has a Muslim- or Islamist-friendly article, usually with positive color photos. The Paper of Record knows how to cover its considerable derriere. Thus, it is careful to have comments from "both sides of the aisle" as long as the critical comments are buried-in-the-balance and do not deflect from the bottom line propaganda having its way with us.

Karima Tung, 12, one of three girls home-schooled by their mother, Fawzia Mai Tung. An important part of the school day: reading the Koran. (Photo: Neil MacFarquhar)

Ian Buruma writes an article that is so cleverly cobbled together than most readers do not understand that it is meant as a devastating attack on the heroic Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Tariq Ramadan, the genetic and intellectual heir to the man who founded the Muslim Brotherhood is, again and again, glowingly profiled, reviewed, published, and shown wearing trendy western dress. Noah Feldman continues to condemn Orthodox Judaism and to extol the virtues of Muslim religious (Shari'a) law, not only for Turkey but for an unsuspecting West. Young, attractive women wearing headscarves are shown and they are quoted saying sophisticated, friendly things.

Steadily, slowly, inexorably, Western readers are being softened for the "kill," seasoned and habituated to accept the subordination of women as an inviolate cultural and religious reality.

Take a look at the March 26th edition of the New York Times. Titled "Resolute or Fearful, Many Muslims Turn to Home Schooling," the article was five columns wide and featured two sympathetic color photos. Both show female teenagers wearing head-and-shoulder hijab. The larger photo resonates for Westerners who may have seen similar images in great paintings of the Middle Ages; the photo somewhat resembles a Vermeer. The domestic intimacy, symmetry, harmony is all there. We are meant to "like" the young and smiling girl in hijab who, according to the caption, is reading the Koran.

The article explains that many Muslim families in California have opted for home schooling for their daughters; forty percent of Pakistani and southeast Asian families "in the district" have done so. Why? Many possible reasons are given: So that Muslim children will not be teased or mocked; exposed to pork; "corrupted" by American influences –– but mainly, so that their girls do not engage in behaviors that would "dishonor" their families and require that they be honor murdered.

For example, Hajra Bibi stopped attending public school and began home schooling when she reached puberty. "Her family wanted her to clean and cook for her male relative, 'Some men don't like it when you wear American clothes –– they don't think it is a good thing for girls. We don't want anyone to point a finger at us, to say that we are bad."

Because that might render them unmarriageable and as candidates to be honor murdered.

The smiling, Vermeer-like photo and the additional photo of three girls wearing heavy hijab and playing with their yo-yos, soften the blow that this information might otherwise elicit.

Why should American citizens or future American citizens, in California or elsewhere, be taught that girls must wear hijab or even niqab (face covering); that boys and men are entitled to boss girls around; that a minimal education and an arranged marriage to your cousin is all that an American female citizen needs? Why live in America if what you want to do is keep the girls culturally illiterate and down on the farm?

The Orthodox Judaism that Noah Feldman spurns, does not practice honor murders. If a woman marries outside her fundamentalist faith, she may indeed be ex-communicated but then again, she may not. If a Christian woman marries outside her faith, but you get my point. The countless successive immigrant waves to America did not practice honor murders. Perhaps ugly, agonizing breaks took place; killing to enforce religious norms did not.

Can we just give it some time, wait and see, give the new-immigrant-on-the block a break? Well sure, but let's remember that some third generation immigrants in the UK have become radical Islamists. Given British racism and the rise of the radical, global mullahs, the expected integration did not "take."

There might be something different about contemporary Islam that does not lend itself to integration.

Why is the New York Times engaged in disinformation about such an important topic?

Dr. Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She is an author and lecturer and co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in Psychology (1969). Visit her website at

This article is archived at
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/2008/03/27/ the_new_york_islamic_times_how.php

To Go To Top

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


A recently made Gaza film depicts Israel burning Arab children alive, in crematoria. Now it claims that there was a Holocaust, but it was of Arab children and was perpetrated by Israel (IMRA, 3/20 from Palestinian Media Watch).

Meanwhile, Hamas uses children as human shields and hires them to retrieve targeted rocket launchers while Israel bends over backwards to minimize civilian Arab casualties. The IDF has aborted missions when children entered the scene, whereas the objective of some PLO missions was to seek out children as targets. Which side do you sppose the world thinks acts excessively?


In a recent offensive, Hamas fugitives took refuge in people's houses. The IDF opened fire without first ascertaining whether civilians live there. Since the presence of the Hamas military made those houses legitimate military targets, the IDF acted within international law. They preserved their own lives (from Hamas violation of international law, the violation being to invest civilian areas).

A weapon lay between Hamas forces and the IDF raiders. A Hamas gunman was killed trying to retrieve it. Hamas then sent a 10-year-old boy to retrieve it. The IDF commander ordered his troops to withhold fire. The boy was able to turn the weapon over to Hamas. It is not known whether that weapon was used to kill Israeli soldiers (IMRA, 3/5). It would not be for lack of trying. I think the IDF was not being ethical. Why is that boy's life worth more than their own, in a war of genocide that the boy's people are waging?


Now that Hamas seized Gaza, it is responsible for the people, though "humanitarian organizations" hold Israel to account for results of Hamas sabotage. Israel keeps records of goods entering Gaza from Israel. Israel opens special humanitarian crossings, but Hamas attacks Israelis there and the crossings themselves. Israel has barred no medical shipment, but Hamas keeps much of it from hospitals. Cement and pipes for sewage facilities have been hurried through, but Hamas diverts them to make rockets. Israel did not reduce electricity to Gaza, it facilitated the repair and building of transformers in Gaza, under sniper fire from Hamas. Hamas also fires on some fuel trucks, and does not allocate them to ambulances and other vital services but for its own purposes (perhaps to its own charities, to get credit with the people). Israel lets Gaza Arabs into Israeli hospitals, though Hamas tries to get them to commit terrorism (IMRA, 3/6). Why not blame Hamas for any problems? If being humane helps an inhumane people wage war on it and Israel get condemned for it, why do it?


An Israeli official explained that the murder of the eight yeshiva students in Jerusalem by an Arab resident was not related to the strife in Gaza. He said that Arabs constantly attempt terrorism against Israelis wherever they can. If it weren't for security services' vigilance, more attacks would succeed and be reported (IMRA, 3/6).

Jihadists tend to relate their latest attack to some other event, so as to garner more propaganda out of it. They pretend justification that way.


Although the US does not consider Hamas legitimate, it does support getting it into a ceasefire with Israel, as an improvement over combat. Sec. Rice accused Hamas of fighting in order to undermine "peace" negotiations (IMRA, 3/6). Nonsense. Hamas isn't concerned with negotiations, it is making war. A ceasefire would help it build up for war, so that is no improvement over combat.


Foreign Min. Livni told Sec. Rice, "But we cannot afford a situation in which, on the surface, there may be some quiet days, but simultaneously, the terrorists are acquiring more and more weapons and will decide when to use it... We cannot afford a terrorist state in Gaza. We cannot afford a failed state as part of the future Palestinian state or an extreme Islamic terrorist state as Gaza seem to be right now. So we need to give an answer both to the missiles coming from Gaza Strip and to the buildup of Hamas, the tunnels, and Egypt." That means Israel realizes that a ceasefire with Hamas and allocating sovereignty to the P.A. are not acceptable.

On the same day, however, PM Olmert said, "Israelis don't wake up every morning thinking of how to strike Gaza next. If we are not attacked, we won't attack either." That means Israel would accept a ceasefire with Hamas.

Since the government knows that a ceasefire is no good, why does it pursue one instead of consistently explaining the fallacy behind it? (Dr. Aaron Miller, IMRA, 3/6.) Since it knows that P.A. statehood means losing the opportunity to eradicate terrorism there, why does the Olmert regime promote P.A. statehood?

P.A. statehood means ending Jewish claims to the area. It also means temporary praise for the regime and that the leftist justice system would not indict or at least would not convict Olmert of all his corruption and certainly not for his betrayal of his country.


The Lebanon Star made remarked that "resistance" is enshrined in international law and the P.A. Arabs have a right to retaliate against "atrocities" Israel committed in Gaza. Then it made its main point that it was wrong of that Jerusalem Arab to shoot the eight yeshiva students. Why? Because attacking civilians hinders rather than helps the Palestinian Arab cause (IMRA, 3/8).

The criticism of terrorism is the same one made by Abbas. He does not call it immoral, he calls it impractical. To me, that makes Abbas and the Star immoral, themselves.

Why is it impractical? Because they know that attacking civilians violates international law, and that international law bans that because it is uncivilized.

Israel attacked terrorists. Atrocities? No, that is its duty under international law.


Five terrorists supposedly were held in P.A. prison preparatory to Israel's granting them amnesty in return for their ending their terrorism. Israel found that they had been let out and were committing terrorism. Israeli forces set out to recapture them. The Israelis wounded four and killed the fifth (IMRA, 3/8).

As stated before, it is unwise to leave terrorists in the tender custody of the P.A.. To eradicate terrorism, eradicate terrorists.


PM Olmert acknowledges that Hizbullah has fully rearmed, but takes comfort from his failed Lebanon offensive from the fact that Hizbullah has not fired rockets at Israel since the war. He claims it is because of Israeli deterrence.

He now claims he is going to obtain Israeli deterrence with the P.A. Apparently that means he is going to let them build up a rocket arsenal, too. He doesn't realize that the reasons for present Hizbullah forbearance may be temporary. Then Hizbullah and the P.A. could saturate Israel with rockets (IMRA, 3/8).

How would he gain deterrence over the P.A.? He won't mount a major offensive, which would destroy the terrorist forces. His little forays and tiny raids do not stop the P.A. from bombarding Israel.

Working without public approval somewhat restrains Olmert. Otherwise, his actions are the same as if he set out to undermine Israeli national security.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven D. Zak, March 26, 2008.

He believes... whatever you believe.

(IsraelNN.com) If one were to sum up the campaign strategy of Barack Obama in a word, it would be "obfuscation." Obama's well-known empty platitudes, of course, serve to hide the man behind them by revealing no detail. His underlying "black rage" –– expressed more openly by his less politically-cunning wife –– is hidden beneath well-crafted loftiness.

Now that he has been exposed as a fellow traveler of the America-loathing anti-Semite Jeremiah Wright, Obama's attempt at damage control relies once again on obfuscation. First, through an attempt to minimize the scope of Wright's hateful rants through such carefully chosen words as "occasionally" (as in "an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy"; and "occasionally" black anger "finds voice in the church on Sunday morning") and "snippets" (as in "snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television"). In truth, as America saw for itself, Wright's church was a cesspool of bile.

Obama also obscures his true sympathies by condemning unnamed "statements" of Wright while embracing the man as "part of me"; just as, when pressed, he "denounced" unspecified "comments" of Louis Farrakhan while referring to the man reverentially as "Minister Farrakhan."

The pretense is at nuance; the strategy is obfuscation. If you're offended by Wright's or Farrakhan's rhetoric, then Obama is with you. If you admire such men, then he's with you too. He believes... whatever you believe.

But behind the obfuscation lies a real person with real views. It defies credibility that the man who spent two decades listening to the bile-filled rants of Jeremiah Wright was drawn to him despite the filth that poured from his mouth rather than because of it; or that he took Wright as his friend and spiritual advisor notwithstanding the radical positions Wright quite clearly embraced.

Imagine a white candidate who had spent the last twenty years worth of Sundays soaking in the rants of a David Duke, but who now –– just now, during a presidential campaign –– wants you to believe that, while he disagrees with some of Duke's "occasional" and "controversial" thoughts, he still seeks Duke's spiritual counsel because Duke represents "the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up [a segment of the white] experience in America." You'd think the man an obfuscater of astonishing proportions.

But obfuscation is what you fall back on when your views are so radical that you can't present them openly to the nation. Consider an earlier radical Democratic contender for the nation's highest office who tried, and failed, to hide his true self and intentions. That man was John Kerry, both for and against the war, the candidate who posed as the combat-hardened prospective commander-in-chief who was in reality intensely hostile to the military. This wasn't nuance; it was obfuscation.

Obama, whose views are informed by perceived "disparities that exist in the African-American community" and "the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow," poses as the man beyond race. He is the divider posing as the uniter. The Palestinian sympathizer posing as a friend of the Jews. The slippery Chicago politician posing as the man above politics. Yet another candidate who doesn't want you to know who he is until it's too late.

Some of his admirers are the first to admit the deception. "If avoiding me would help him to become president, I'd be glad to stay in the background," Louis Farrakhan told Nightline, in a candid admission that Obama's best hope is obfuscation.

Likewise, black Chicago columnist and Obama supporter Mary Mitchell, angered by her candidate's offense of "denigrating Farrakhan's legacy" at a February debate, forgave him his "denunciation" because it was strategic, not sincere. "Fortunately for Obama," she wrote, "most black people understand the game."

Thanks to Jeremiah Wright, so do we all –– proving that, in America, even an anti-Semitic hate-monger may accomplish something worthwhile.

Steven D. Zak is a lawyer and writer, living in California. Contact him by email at SDZ@aol.com This article appeared in Arutz-Sheva

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, March 26, 2008.

This was written by Sharon Roffe-Ofir and it appeared today in YNet News
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/ 1,2506,L-3523953,00.html

"As you are well aware, in the 23 years that I have been in captivity, I have never received one cent from the Government of Israel. Even though, as an officially recognized Israeli agent, I am entitled to full government support and financial compensation, I have received nothing," Jonathan Pollard said this week in a letter addressed to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

"Similarly, my wife Esther has never received a single cent from the Government of Israel, nor any kind of support, even when she was seriously ill with cancer," wrote Pollard who has been jailed in the US since 1985 after being convicted of spying for Israel.

"Yet your office continues to lie and to disseminate official government statements declaring that my wife and I and my 'close associates' are receiving 'full support in every possible respect' from the Government of Israel," Pollard said in the letter, which was sent to Israel via certified mail.

"If, as you insist, your Government is allocating resources for me and my wife, but we are not receiving them, then who is getting the money? Are the funds (which you claim are intended for us) being misappropriated by your office and used illegally elsewhere? While we do not know for certain what kind of corruption is going on, we do know that something smells very bad."

A few months ago Pollard's attorney, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, sent Olmert a letter demanding that the PM substantiate the government's claims that it was supporting the Pollards financially.

Olmert's legal counsel, Shulamit Barnea Fargo, wrote in response that "the claims in your letter are for the most part, baseless, and the style in which they are written is offensive. I do not see any place for providing the information which you requested, out of fear that this will damage Mr. Pollard's welfare and the efforts of the State of Israel to assist him.

'Expose the truth'

Fargo continued to say that "the government has acted in the past and is currently working to assist Jonathan Pollard and his associates."

Similar responses were provided by the government to several letters sent by Israeli citizens asking why the State refused to support Esther Pollard, whose financial situation, according to them, was dire.

Pollard for his part said in his letter "Mr. Prime Minister, that if the Government had any proof to substantiate the lies your office is disseminating about support for me and my wife, you would have no need to evade the questions my attorney asked."

His wife told Ynet, "If I were indeed receiving support from the Government of Israel, would I be living this way, in dire straits financially? Would I be forced to live in a little room in the apartment of a kindly Jerusalem widow who heard of our financial distress and offered to take me in?"

Meanwhile, Esther Pollard refuted recent claims made by senior defense officials and politicians according to which a comprehensive inquiry recently launched by the State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss may compromise "sensitive efforts" to bring about her husband's release.

Lindenstrauss was ordered by the Knesset's State Control Committee to investigate actions taken by Israel's governments over the years to release Pollard.

All the "hysteria" surrounding the State Comptroller's investigation, she explained, has nothing to do with fear of damaging efforts to secure Pollard's release. "There are no efforts to free Pollard," Esther Pollard said.

She continued to say that "I was recently told by a senior American official with close ties to the the Bush Administration, there is only one man who can free your husband –– Bush; and there is only one man who has to ask for your husband's release –– Olmert. So what are these Israeli defense officials afraid of? How can they be afraid of damaging initiatives to secure his release, when there are no initiatives for Jonathan's release?

"In point of fact, what they are really afraid of is that the investigation will reveal who has been misappropriating all the money intended for Pollard for the last 23 years, and that the truth will come to light that this is not just about monetary corruption, but about trafficking in the blood of an Israeli agent," Esther Pollard said.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 26, 2008.


Foreign Min. Livni told foreign ambassadors, "More than that, we decided to avoid civilian casualties by sending a warning message to a place from which we knew the terrorists act. They, on the other hand, called on civilians to live there because we were going to attack. We prefer to attack an empty building which is being used to manufacture rockets, even taking into consideration that the terrorists will leave the place. So you know what happened. All the children gathered on the roof. Since they know that the strike usually comes from the air, they send the children to the roof to prevent us from targeting that building."

As a result, the IDF halts many such bombings at the last moment.

Dr. Aaron Lerner commented, "One of the things Israeli decision makers continually fail to understand is that when you apply false morality in a situation that no one give you credit for it. They just think you are stupid." (It is stupid or worse.)

Among Livni's statements was, "In the West Bank we have another government, which is supported by the international community and Israel as well, which is a legitimate government because it accepts the parameters of the international community to get legitimacy. I refer to the parameters of the Quartet requirements. They represent the national aspirations of the Palestinians to live in a state of their own, in peace and security, I hope, with Israel. We have a conflict with them, but we also have a mutual interest. We see this as a mutual interest to live in peace and security in two different states, two different homelands for two different peoples." (IMRA, 3/4/08.)

The ambassadors asked the usual questions about whether Israel is inflicting collective punishment (Livni said the Muslim rocket attacks on Israeli cities do), is it fighting disproportionately, and should it negotiate with Hamas. At this late date, to ask questions like that which have been answered long ago makes them as stupid as Livni. Ambassadors should not rely on ignorant reporters for notions of "disproportionate" but on their experts in international law.

Livni's statements about Abbas' regime accepting Quartet requirements, his Arabs having national aspirations, a mutual interest with Israel such as wanting peace, and their being entitled to a state disgust me. An Israeli Foreign Minister should not be lying to promote genocidal jihadists. How dare she want to give away Jewish territory! How can she claim Abbas accepts Quartet requirements, when he and Arafat have been violating their agreements since 1993? The P.A. doesn't want a state, it wants to destroy a state, Israel. What mutual interest? Abbas honors terrorists.

Foreign Minister, and she doesn't know who the enemy is. In a way, that makes Olmert and her enemies of Israel. Israel's main problem is a disloyal Left and fools for leaders. My friends don't know how anti-Israel those leaders are.


For the second time, an Islamist organization has apologized to Daniel Pipes. Both times, the apologies were made under Pipes' threat of suit for defamation.

Pipes set up a legal group to defend against Muslim slander (Pipes, 841, 3/4/8).


Muslims increasingly mourn the loss of conquered Spain hundreds of years ago.


Sec. Rice said she is devoting all her remaining tenure to establishing another Palestinian Arab state. She is consulting former US leaders Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, former U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross, and ex-secretaries of state James Baker, Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright. They all were failures in foreign policy. "Even allowing for exaggeration, don't Venezuela, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, China, and North Korea, for starters, matter any more?" (Op. Cit..)

What is driving Rice? It isn't sane. Nor is it good for the US to foster another terrorist state. If Israel had sane leaders, itself, it would tell her to stay home.

They are determined to seize it, again (Ibid). Appeasement doesn't help.


A member of the PLO governing committee said on P.A. TV, controlled by Abbas, that the US and Britain are the natural enemies of the Arab nation and should be fought by it in Iraq (Sorry, lost citation). The US helps the P.A. against Israel. Does that make sense?


Israel's Civil Administration brought some Arabs into Elon Moreh, either to pick olives (why in a town of Jews?) or to claim town land. Jews asked them to leave. They claim that one pushed one of them. A Hebrew speaking cop asked one, who reads only a little Arabic, to sign a statement in Arabic he didn't understand. Every day the Civil Administration called him demanding he testify. He swore that the accused young woman was not the one who pushed him. She spent three months in unheated solitary confinement for refusal to recognize a court that persecutes its own people. Although exonerated, the girl was remanded for another month, to punish her for her non-cooperation (IMRA, 3/5). The government is trying to push the Jews out, however valid their claims and however invalid the Arabs' claims. When Arabs attack Jews in the Territories, it almost always is the Jews who get arrested, especially if defending themselves.


I used to belong to Common Cause, because its primary goal was campaign finance reform. Money is a major factor in winning elections. A minimum amount is needed to maintain a campaign. That minimum is high.

Sen. McCain sponsored a reform statute. It was not up to the job. Society is too complex. When he prohibited certain forms of excessive campaign spending, candidates devised other forms, safe within the law. Ironically, the banned forms are what McCain could raise more money from, whereas labor unions and liberal organizations such as Soros' and Planned Parenthood expect to raise half a billion dollars against McCain. We can't control this without censorship.


The first major test of the use of human shields came when Hamas threatened to send a wave of people to cross the Gaza-Israel line. Hamas dared Israel to shoot down thousands of people. Israel publicly prepared to use force to stop the mass invasion. Hamas did not risk finding out whether Israel were bluffing.

I imagine that if masses of Arab invaders were shot, lawyers would sue Israel. Foreign governments would condemn Israel and not Hamas for putting its people in jeopardy. If Israeli police stood aside, the Muslims would slaughter them and the civilians in Israeli cities. The world wouldn't mind that. So much for letting gentiles set humanitarian policy for Israel.

Now we may come to the ultimate test of human shields. Defense Min. Barak is checking his legal options on it. He threatens to warn a neighborhood of Gaza to evacuate from it, each time that Gazans fire rockets at Israel, so the next day their lives are spared as Israeli artillery flattens the neighborhood.

Probably even before he were to carry out such a policy, the US would demand he stop and the Security Council would call an emergency meeting. When Israelis are bombarded, they hardly bestir themselves.

Let's suppose Barak got started. The first time, judging by past actions, Hamas is likely to call upon, and to enforce its call, for the residents to stay put. Then Israel would be in the position of killing thousands of supposed non-combatants. That would arouse the US and the Security Council. It also would arouse people of conscience, not just leftists. How long would the policy last?

On the other hand, if the Security Council were slow to act, and three neighborhoods and their inhabitants were devastated, Hamas might cease to fire rockets at Israel. I would not mourn those residents, for they are part of jihad.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, March 26, 2008.
These are articles on what's happening at the U.N. and they come from UN Watch.

Show some backbone, EU
by Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch in Geneva.
Jerusalem Post.

The UN Human Rights Council's preoccupation with Israel will surge to a new intensity this week with the expected election of two officials who describe the Jewish state in Nazi terminology, along with three more resolutions indicting it for a litany of alleged crimes.

Unless the European Union starts showing backbone, the UN's other powerful voting blocs will continue scapegoating the Middle East's only democracy in order to divert attention from situations of gross human rights abuses in places like Tibet, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe, which target peaceful protesters, women and dissidents.

The council was created in June 2006 to reform the discredited Commission on Human Rights, criticized by many for its regular focus on Israel to the exclusion of the world's worst human rights violators. However, apart from some passing attention to Burma, the supposedly reformed body has devoted all of its condemnatory resolutions to the Jewish state –– 16 to date.

Even still, the upcoming week, wrapping up the council's main annual session, will stand out as particularly egregious.

First, the 47-nation council will vote on three separate resolutions, introduced by the Arab and Islamic states, slamming Israel for alleged human rights violations in the Golan Heights, concerning the settlements, and for "severely impeding the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination."

There is not a word about recent Palestinian rocket and shooting attacks targeting civilians.

As it happens, the council already condemned Israel during the first week of this session –– over events in Gaza –– after Arab and Islamic states pushed the panel to rearrange its schedule and open with Agenda Item 7, "the Human Rights situation in Palestine and other Occupied Arab Territories," before anything else.

BY CONTRAST, the council has maintained strict silence on the bloody shootings and mass arrests taking place in Tibet. Its resolutions have been equally silent about abuses in 190 other countries.

Second, the Arab and Islamic states applied massive pressure on the council leadership to list Richard Falk as the only nominee to be the next Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, to replace John Dugard, whose six-year term ends soon.

The terms of the mandate, unchanged from February 1993, are to investigate "Israel's violations of the principles and bases of international law." Actions by Palestinians and other Middle East regimes –– rocket attacks, suicide bombings, state sponsorship of terror –– are excluded from the investigator's purview.

Falk, an emeritus professor at Princeton, is a veteran figure on the international scene of radical Left and pro-Palestinian politics. "It is especially painful for me, as an American Jew," he wrote in a recent article, "to feel compelled to portray the ongoing and intensifying abuse of the Palestinian people by Israel through a reliance on such an inflammatory metaphor as 'holocaust.'"

After describing the Nazi horrors, he asked, "Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not."

Falk's article concluded by warning of a "Palestinian holocaust in the making." If appointed, Falk will be a ubiquitous voice undermining the balanced approach of the road map for peace.

THIRD, THE council is expected to elect Jean Ziegler, a radical Geneva politician, to its 18-member advisory committee. As the UN expert on the right to food for the past seven years, Ziegler ignored many of the world's most starving populations, instead launching polemics against the West, the US and Israel.

In 2005, Ziegler compared Israeli soldiers to concentration camp guards. During a 2006 interview, he said, "I refuse to describe Hizbullah as a terrorist organization. It is a national resistance movement. I can understand Hizbullah when they kidnap soldiers."

As documented by a new UN Watch documentary available on YouTube, Ziegler also has an odd affinity for dictators. In 1989, shortly after Libyan agents blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, he went to Libya to co-found the "Moammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize," and served as its spokesman.

The prize has since been awarded to anti-Western dictators such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, as well as racists and anti-Semites such as Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, and Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Muhammad. In 2002, the award went to Roger Garaudy, a French Holocaust denier –– in the same year that Ziegler won it himself.

Bizarrely, although he once boasted of it –– in five different newspapers, including Time magazine –– Ziegler now denies any involvement with the prize.

Can anything be done? Yes.

On the resolutions, the Arab and Islamic states rely on an automatic majority of non-democratic countries. Yet the key battle is one of legitimacy, won or lost by how the democratic European Union votes. If the EU would announce a new stand of opposing the endless one-sided resolutions –– instead of abstaining or even voting in favor –– they might actually end.

Regarding Richard Falk, the appointment tomorrow will be by consensus between the council president and the 47 member states. If Canada and the EU publicly declare their opposition to his nomination, there will be no consensus. Though Falk could be elected by the Arab-backed majority, it is considered embarrassing for any expert to begin a mandate without the support of key democratic countries. The US, while not a voting member, must also publicly declare that they do not support this US national.

Finally, Ziegler's election, also for tomorrow, will be decided by the 47 council members. His victory is virtually assured –– unless Switzerland withdraws his nomination. Human rights activists from Darfur, Cuba, the US and Europe have appealed to Swiss President Pascal Couchepin to act now, as have many hundreds of individuals through a petition on www.unwatch.org.

There's only one day left.

This week more than ever, the very credibility of the UN human rights system is at stake.

"Human Rights Activists Urge Swiss to Suspend Tomorrow's UN Nomination of Khaddafi Ally Pending Independent Inquiry"

Jean Ziegler Supported Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro, Co-Founded "Muammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize"

Geneva, March 25, 2008 –– One day before the UN Human Rights Council votes to elect its 18 expert advisors, an activist for Darfur victims, a former political prisoner from Cuba, the former deputy prime minister of Sweden, and Canada's leading human rights advocate have joined to urge Swiss President Pascal Couchepin and Foreign Minister Calmy-Rey to suspend their nomination of Jean Ziegler, 1989 co-founder of the "Muammar Khaddadi Human Rights Prize," pending an independent and impartial inquiry into his record. (See full text of appeal below.)

Under the direction of Mrs. Calmy-Rey, who has close political ties with Ziegler, the Swiss Foreign Ministry has been engaged in an intense campaign of UN vote-trading in order to elect the former socialist politician from Geneva in tomorrow's vote. A glossy Swiss campaign brochure, sent to capitals around the world, describes Ziegler as a highly qualified champion of human rights.

However, Ziegler's qualifications for the UN human rights post are challenged by activists Angel De Fana, a former political prisoner who spent 20 years in a Cuban jail, Gibreil Hamid, who heads the Darfur Peace and Development Center and often testifies for Darfur victims before the UN Human Rights Council, former Swedish deputy prime minister and leading pro-democracy activist Per Ahlmark, and McGill University law professor Irwin Cotler, a Canadian parliamentarian and former justice minister who served as counsel to political prisoners Nelson Mandela and Andrei Sakharov.

Supported by an international coalition of more than 20 non-governmental organizations, the activists point to Ziegler's long record of support for serial human rights violators including Libya's Khaddafi, Fidel Castro of Cuba, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, and Ethiopian strongman Colonel Mengistu.

In 1962, Fidel Castro's police threw Angel De Fana in jail for being a member of a pro-democracy group named after José Martí, the Cuban writer and national hero. ''We had to hide to assemble,'' said De Fana, who languished in prison from 1962 to 1983, adding that he and fellow prisoners had to endure years of forced labor. "I was forced to cut stone in a quarry."

However, as UN expert on the right to food, Ziegler recently visited Cuba and hailed the Castro regime as a model government, and refused to meet with dissidents.

In the past five days, the Swiss president and foreign minister have also been flooded with hundreds of email appeals from around the world urging the suspension of the Ziegler nomination.

UN Watch, a Geneva-based human rights monitoring organization, published a new video last week together with extensive documentation on Ziegler's questionable record, and urged NGO activists to take action through a campaign on its website
See: http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=129.

"Urgent Letter to Swiss President and Foreign Minister on Jean Ziegler's Nomination to UN Human Rights Council"

Dear President Couchepin and Foreign Minister Calmy-Rey,

We urge you to withdraw your government's nomination of Jean Ziegler to the UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, the election for which is scheduled on March 26, 2008.

If elected, Mr. Ziegler would occupy one of the only three seats allotted to Western countries. The official criteria for the position are expertise in human rights, high moral standing, independence and impartiality. An analysis of Mr. Ziegler's record raises serious questions as to his satisfaction of these requirements. Concerns include:

* Mr. Ziegler's abuse of his current UN Mandate. As UN special rapporteur on the right to food for the past seven years, Mr. Ziegler ignored many of the world's most starving populations, instead focusing attention on his personal political agenda. As documented in the UN Watch report "Blind to Burundi," during 2000 to 2004, Mr. Ziegler systematically failed to speak out for numerous food emergencies, in Burundi, the Central African Republic, Sierra Leone and elsewhere.

* Mr. Zieger's support for serial violators of human rights. In 1986, Mr. Ziegler served as advisor to Ethiopian dictator Colonel Mengistu on a constitution instituting one-party rule. In 2002 he praised the Zimbabwean dictator, saying, "Mugabe has history and morality with him." He paid visits to Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Kim Il-Sung in North Korea. Mr. Ziegler is also a long-time supporter of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, whose regime Mr. Ziegler hailed during an official visit in October, while he refused to meet Cuban dissidents. Also this year, during an interview in Lebanon, Mr. Ziegler said, "I refuse to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. It is a national resistance movement. I can understand Hezbollah when they kidnap soldiers..."

* Mr. Ziegler's involvement with Libyan propaganda. In 1989, shortly after Libyan agents blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, Mr. Ziegler went to Libya to co-found the "Moammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize," and served as its Geneva spokesman. The prize has since been awarded to anti-Western dictators such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. It has also been awarded to notorious racists and anti-Semites such as Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, and Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Muhammad. Bizarrely, although he once boasted of it, Mr. Ziegler now denies any involvement with the prize. All of this was documented in a front-page story in your country's leading newspaper. (M. Haefliger, "Ziegler's Libyen Connection," Neue Zurcher Zeitung, June 25, 2006.)

* Mr. Ziegler's support for Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy. In 1996, Mr. Ziegler publicly defended Roger Garaudy, a French Stalinist whose book The Founding Myths of Modern Israel denies the Holocaust. "All your work as a writer and philosopher," Mr. Ziegler wrote on April 1, 1996, "attests to the rigor of your analysis and the unwavering honesty of your intentions. It makes you one of the leading thinkers of our time." In 2002, Mr. Garaudy was awarded the Khaddafi Prize –– the same year that Mr. Ziegler received it as well.

Many of the world's leading authorities have objected to Mr. Ziegler's practices. In 2005, both UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and High Commissioner Louise Arbour publicly denounced Mr. Ziegler for having compared Israeli soldiers to concentration camp guards. He is the only UN expert to have been so reprimanded. Seventy U.S. congressmen wrote to the UN, citing Mr. Ziegler for anti-Semitism, while the Canadian government filed an official protest.

In April 2006, an international coalition of 15 non-governmental organizations, including victims of Cuban and Libyan abuses, protested Mr. Ziegler's nomination as a UN expert, citing his disturbing record. Similarly, many scholars have questioned Mr. Ziegler's academic credentials. For example, when he was made professor at the University of Geneva, eminent historian Herbert Luthy returned his honorary doctorate in protest.

We note that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez nominated Mr. Ziegler for the same post in 2004, but that he failed to win election.

In order to protect the credibility of the world's highest intergovernmental human rights body –– with which Switzerland is heavily involved –– we urge you to withdraw this nomination. At a minimum, it should be suspended pending the results of an independent and impartial inquiry into Mr. Ziegler's record. Thank you.

Professor Irwin Cotler, M.P.
Human Rights Advocate
Member of Canadian Parliament & Opposition Critic on Human Rights
Former Minister of Justice and Attorney-General

Gibreil Hamid
Darfur Survivor
President, Darfur Peace and Development Center

Per Ahlmark
Human Rights and Democracy Activist
Former Swedish Deputy Prime Minister

Angel De Fana
Ex-political prisoner
Director of political prisoners' organization
Plantados Hasta la Libertad y la Democracia

Additional Signatories: more than 20 non-governmental organizations –– go to http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=130 for expanded list.


Senior U.S. and European Lawmakers Protest Jean Ziegler Nomination

* Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, the European Parliament's Head of Delegation for UN Relations, sent a strong protest today to the Swiss ambassador to the European Parliament concerning the Swiss nomination of Jean Ziegler to a UN human rights post. Click for full letter (in German).

* Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, ranking Republican of the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, also today expressed "great concern" over the possible election of Swiss national Jean Ziegler as an advisor to the United Nations Human Rights Council. In a letter to Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, Ros-Lehtinen urged the Swiss Government to rescind its support of Ziegler, whose "anti-Semitic statements and links to vicious human rights violators make him an unsuitable candidate to advise the Council."
Go to http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=131 for more.

Join the conversation: visit our new UN Watch blog.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, March 26, 2008.

When I lived in Maale Amos, I met Miro Cohen a number of times. He was highly respected by the Jews in the area. He often had to earn that respect the hard way by saving some endangered Jew from an Arab attack.

It does not surprise me that he was targeted by the GOI for harassment. He is fluent in Arabic and at the beginning of the Arab revolt was able to establish a sort of working arrangement with certain Arab families that they would keep him informed of events in the area and help any Jews that might fall into problems while near them. The Army of course did everything they could to destroy that arrangement.

He, like so many other patriot, is now in great financial and physical danger. If you can help, please do so.

Received this email before Purim from David Morris, the Founder and Chairman of the Board of the Chessed organization Lema'an Achai** in Ramat Beit Shemesh which provides social services and help for hundreds of needy Ramat Beit Shemesh families.

David Morris wrote:

It is particularly important, as Oslo War shows every sign of heating up again, to set a firm precedent that Jews can be relied upon to aid our fellow Jews, who are punished for defending themselves from Arab attacks.

I spoke today with Yaniv Cohen, the son of Miro Cohen, Security Officer for Tekoa, and a Jewish Hero.

Sixteen years ago, during the First Oslo War, in the course of Miro's security duties, he was attacked by Arabs with rocks and boulders on the road to Tekoa. When Miro fired back in order to defend himself and other Jewish drivers, an Arab attacker was seriously injured and died of his wounds two years later.

As an inevitable consequence of a policy of successive Israeli governments which hold as suspicious and which brings court litigation against almost any Jew who defends himself or his family against Arab terrorist attacks, for the past sixteen years, Miro has been pursued and harassed by an extremist left wing group, Yedidei Beit Sachor, through both criminal and civil courts.

To cut a long and harrowing story short, Miro was found innocent in the Criminal Court which found that the rock attack by the Arabs posed an imminent threat to his life. Later, he fined 600,000 NIS by the Civil Court which deemed that there was no threat to Miro's life. Subsequently, Miro pleaded that he is does not have and is unable to pay 600,000 NIS. The court then reduced his fine. Miro now must now pay legal fees to the Judge of Civil Court, some 90,000 NIS ($25,000) to close the file. He has three months to pay.

Miro does not have the means on his own to pay. If the fine is not paid within three months, the court will seize or attach his pension until it is paid. Miro is a family man, father of ten children of which four, ages ranging from 13 to 20 years, are still at home. He needs both the pay he earns as Tekoa's head of security and his monthly pension in order to live.

Yaniv Cohen lives in Ramat Bet Shemesh, and is working hard to collect the money for his father, who is aged 62 and worn out after years of struggle. Yaniv speaks very little English and has virtually no contacts abroad.

I invite you to help:

1/ By donating funds in order for Miro Cohen to pay the fine assessed and close the file.

2/ To set up a quick and effective local fundraising campaign for Miro, a Jewish Hero.

3/ Please email me if you are:
a. willing to give some of your time to this important and urgent cause.
b. If you would be able to donate money for Miro's fine (or know people who might).

Tizku L'Mitzvot!


Donors in Israel can make donations to:

Amutah "Bet Tzomet"
Yishuv Tekoa
d.n. Tzafon Yehuda 90908
Attn: Ayal Levi (Miro Cohen Yishuv Tekoa)

and by clearly specifying that the donation goes to: "Miro Cohen Yishuv Tekoa" and marking same on the bottom left side of the envelope.

The Seif 46 # for Bet Tzomet is: #580373512.

In America, checks can either be sent to:

Tomche Yisrael
369 Crown Street
Brooklyn, NY 11225
501(c)(3)# 141290002

Memo Line on check should read: "Miro Cohen Yishuv Tekoa"

Attention line on the envelope: "Miro Cohen Yishuv Tekoa"


**Lema'an Achai received universal praise as being one of the first Chessed organizations to arrive at the Jerusalem Hotels on the days of the expulsion of our brethren from Gush Katif to provide aid, comfort and strength to them in the hours, days and weeks after they were evicted by the government from their homes and land in Gush Katif.

In the summer of 2006, Lema'an Achai played a leading role in facilitating temporary living accommodations for hundreds of residents of the north who came to Beit Shemesh and Ramat Beit Shemesh to get away from the onslaught of Katyusha and Grad rockets and mortars during the Lebanon conflict.

[Editor's Note: Lee Caplan writes," I have spoken to both Miro Cohen's son Yaniv and to the Ayal Levi, the head of the Amutah Bet Tzomet in Tekoa and can attest to the accuracy of the facts and to the seriousness of Miro Cohen's need."]

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

Zelasko writes, "Stop complaining and fight back!
Here's how:

To Go To Top

Posted by Daisy Stern, March 26, 2008.
This was written by Ezra HaLevi, a writer for Arutz-Sheva. It appeared today

(IsraelNN.com) A Gush Katif expellee and terror victim who won a US court battle against the Palestinian Authority (PA) says the battle has only begun.

Moshe Saperstein and his wife, Rachel, have just returned from America, where they attended the proceedings that ended in a ruling awarding them $16 million in damages from the PLO and its current manifestation, the PA. That figure was tripled by a congressional act aimed at punishing terror groups.

The court ruled that the Fatah-run PA was liable for the attack that left US citizen Saperstein wounded due to its funding of the Al-Aksa Brigades terror group, which dispatched the terrorist.

The Sapersteins say they will turn down any settlement offer short of the ruled amount –– even if it is in the millions of dollars and despite the fact that, as Gaza expellees, they could certainly use the funds. "Terrorists must be made to pay a steeper price," Rachel Saperstein told Arutz-7. "There are millions in international aid that pour into the PA, including from Israel. Those funds should go to piece together the shattered lives of the victims and not to the coffers of those who dispatched the murderers."

The Sapersteins say that the real battle is for a verdict in Israel's courts that would then open the door for all of Israel's thousands of terror victims' families to sue terrorist groups. Israel also has the ability to retain customs taxes collected for the PA in order to pay the authority's debts to its victims.

They also hope Israel's Supreme Court will work with the US Judiciary to enforce Congress's decision to hold terror groups accountable for attacks on US citizens. The congressional act grants federal courts jurisdiction in cases related to international terrorism, giving every US national affected by an act of international terrorism the right to sue in US district courts and be assisted by court-ordered subpoenas and the tools necessary to locate and confiscate terrorists' assets.

Contact Daisy Stern by email at daisystern1@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 26, 2008.

The number of concessions we are apparently willing to make in order to "strengthen" Abbas.

The latest is an Israeli decision to allow the PA to purchase armored vehicles from Russia for use by security forces in Nablus. The decision had been held up because the PA wanted machine guns mounted on these vehicle, and at this Israel balked.

Twenty-five vehicles will be delivered soon via Jordan, and another 25 will be held in Jordan pending a further Israeli decision.

MK Binyamin Netanyahu (Likud), speaking at a conference of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs today, had it exactly right:

"The idea of entrusting the PA with our security has failed in the past in Gaza and it will also fail in Judea and Samaria. The notion that we will provide the PA with weapons in its present state and believe that those weapons will protect us is a nonsensical one.

"Those weapons will be turned against IDF soldiers much faster than we think. This is exactly what happened in Gaza."


But let's take yet another look at exactly whom we're arming:

The US generals responsible for monitoring the compliance with the roadmap of Israel and the PA have expressed concern about Palestinian anti-terrorism efforts.

If the PA were truly serious about eradicating terrorist infrastructure, it would be arresting suspected terrorists, doing interrogations, and holding trials. But that is not what's happening. Rather, according to the US monitors, the PA is content with "containing terror," stopping specific attacks and attempting to prevent Hamas from getting strong enough to take over. When terrorists are arrested, they are brought to trial only if there is outside pressure.


It took us six years but we did it! Israel has now apprehended Omar Jaber, top Hamas commander in Tulkarm. Jaber was the mastermind of the infamous 2002 Park Hotel seder massacre, in which 30 people sitting at seder in the hotel were killed and another 140 wounded. It was this horrific attack that precipitated the Defensive Shield Operation.

We have a reputation for getting those who commit these horrendous acts, no matter how long it takes.


See David Weinberg's piece, "Shelve the Shelf Agreement," on how foolish and dangerous is the notion of a signed agreement that presumably provides a political horizon but would not be activated yet:

http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/perspectives40.html [and home page, Think-Israel, March-April 2008.]

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 26, 2008.

This is a news item from The Yeshiva World

In a joint IDF and ISA arrest operation overnight at the Bal'a village near Tulkarm, Omar Jabar, head of the Hamas terror organization in Tulkarm area, was arrested. Jabar has been sought since 2002 for his direct responsibility in carrying out the suicide attack at the "Park Hotel" in Netanya in Pesach, March 27th 2002, in which 30 Israeli civilians were R"L killed and 143 were injured.

"The implementation of this kind of operation during the Purim holiday is not symbolic; it only shows that the IDF and ISA do not rest nor relax for a moment when it comes to the defense of Israel's security," said Lieutenant Colonel Nir Bar-On. "The combat soldiers will continue to carry out operations so that Israeli civilians will be able to celebrate their holidays in peace and security."

Omar Jabar has been sought since 2002 for his direct responsibility in carrying out the suicide attack during Pesach in the "Park Hotel" in Netanya on March of the same year. Jabar was responsible for recruiting the contact that dispatched the suicide bomber, introducing him to the head of the Hamas in Tulkarm at the time, Abed Sayad. Sayad admitted in his investigation that the connection with Jabar had already begun in 1994, when the two were imprisoned together.

Since 2002, Jabar was directly involved in recruiting militants to Hamas secrete terror cells and in the past year was involved in their combat training.

In recent years, whilst hiding in the Tulkarm area villages, Jabar used his own family members to transfer encrypted messages to Hamas terror operatives, in order to lead the Hamas terror organization in Tulkarm, finance his and other militants' terrorist activity and purchase weapons.

Following clashes between Hamas and Fatah in the Gaza Strip in January 2007, Jabar worked to establish and finance a Hamas operational cell in Tulkarm. He purchased weapons and recruited terror operatives, intended for the establishment of a Hamas cell similar to operational cells active in Gaza.

[Editor's Note: See also the video of Aviva Lee from Fori24six on Omar Jabar's arrest at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDM510Sstgw&feature=email ]

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI), March 26, 2008.

This was written by Moshe Sharon and it appeared in the AFSI publication OUTPOST
http://www.afsi.org/OUTPOST/2008/Outpost_2008_03.pdf and
html http://mideastoutpost.com/ formats. Moshe Sharon is Professor Emeritus of Islamic History at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem

Hatred of Judaism and the Jews is an intellectual creation. Its foundations were laid in ancient times by historians, writers, poets, philosophers and artists long before Christianity added the theological dimension. Since then it has been the one permanent feature that has accompanied the Jews throughout their history.

Born in Hellenistic Egypt, in the third century BCE, intellectual anti-Semitism has two main features which go hand in hand; one is the invention of an alternative (or counter) history for the Jews; the other describing them as inferior human beings, filthy, bearers of disease and haters of humanity and of the gods.

Alternative history declares the historical records of its target people as false, and presents its own version as the truth. It has passed through certain major stations on its way, such as the writings of some of the Church Fathers, a number of Moslem historians and theologians in the Middle Ages, Voltaire's (1694-1778) essay on the Jews in the Dictionaire Philosophique, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Hitler's Mein Kampf, until it became commonplace in Arab text books, in multitudes of internet sites, and in numerous publications.

The denial of the Holocaust is the most recent and most arrogant example of alternative history. The Holocaust deniers know the truth, for there is hardly a case in history that is more documented than the Holocaust. Nevertheless they are out to absolve the Nazis, and blame the victims, presenting the extermination of 6,000,000 Jews as a Jewish conspiracy. Mahmud 'Abbas (nom de guerre: "Abu Mazen"), the current PA President of whom the West is so enamored, is one of them. In 1982 he received a PhD from Lumumba University in Moscow for his thesis on the "Secret Relations between the Nazis and Zionism," which included all the elements of Holocaust denial.

The first known alternative history of the Jews was written in Alexandria by the Egyptian priest Manetho, who felt the need to supply his Greek readers with a reply to the Biblical story of the Exodus, with the explicit aim of denigrating the Jews. According to Manetho's alternative history, the Jews were a group of 80,000 lepers who rebelled, took over Egypt and, ruling it for more than a decade, spread death and horror in the country. Their leader was Osarseph, a priest from Heliopolis. After thirteen years in exile the Egyptian king returned to Egypt, killed most of them and drove the rest out of the country.

Manetho's "history" was designed to negate everything positive about the Jews. The Jews described Joseph as a wise governor who saved Egypt from disaster. Menetho replied by making him an apostate Egyptian priest of Osiris (hence his name Osarseph) who ruined Egypt. The Jews regarded themselves as a people; Manetho described them as a horrifying mob of lepers. The Jews claimed that God had brought them out of Egypt; Manetho asserted that they had been expelled.

Manetho's fiction and the abundance of horror stories about the Jews, spread by his copiers and successors, exemplify a mixture of hatred and fear. Later, Moslem classical historians created their own versions of Jewish alternative history. But unlike their predecessors, their hatred of the Jews was based on contempt rather than on fear. However, once the Moslems became acquainted with European anti-Semitism, they embraced the Western description of the Jew as the embodiment of pure evil, and Judaism as a bloodthirsty religion whose followers planned to subdue the world with the help of Satan. Thus the hatred felt by the Moslems towards the Jews now comprised both fear and contempt.

The blood libel, the gruesome lie of Christian Europe against the Jews, assumed immediate prominence in Islamic anti-Semitic thought and practice.

The first blood libel case under Islamic rule in modern times was the "Damascus Affair". In 1840, the Jews of Damascus were accused of the ritual murder of a Capuchin friar. Far from immediately opposing the false accusation, Ratti Menton, the French consul in Damascus gave it credibility. Supported by the French government, he himself conducted the "investigation" of the case together with the Moslem Governor. The entire Jewish community was held to ransom and its leaders were arrested, some tortured to death, before a general outcry in the world put an end to the affair. Ratti Menton, however, was never convinced of the innocence of the Jews.

The attribution of ritual murder to the Jews was popular among Moslem intellectuals and became the staple of anti-Semitic Moslem propaganda. The Damascus Affair has never died, still presented as proof of ritual murder anchored in the Jewish religion. Mustafa Tlas, the Syrian minister of war, wrote his PhD on the subject and published it in a book called The Unleavened Bread of Zion which by 2002 had sold out eight editions. He described the Damascus Affair in great detail as "evidence" of the Jewish practice of ritual murder. Ratti Menton is his proof for the truth of the information.

Arab readers now comprise an enthusiastic market for anti-Semitic literature whether written originally in Arabic or translated from other languages. Among the latter, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a crude, primitive anti-Semitic Russian forgery and Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf are best sellers, and compulsory reading for the military. The infamous book of Canon August Rohling Der Talmudjude is the modern Moslem historian's bible. In the early 1880s Rohling, a professor at the Imperial University of Prague, published a worthless anti-Semitic book, which he claimed was based on the Talmud. In 1885, European scholars exposed Rohling as a fake, a liar, and an ignoramus. As a result he was obliged to resign his university post. Moslem writers do not let such minor facts confuse them. For them Rohling, the Protocols, Hitler, Tlas, Abu Mazen and writings by similar authors constitute the authentic library on the Jews and Judaism. Other sources fall under the headline of the "Jewish (Zionist) conspiracy."

Having enthusiastically adopted the accusation of Jewish ritual murder as an absolute truth, Moslem writers have become ever more creative. They widened the scope of the victims from Christian to Palestinian and other children, and added the cakes of Purim to Passover unleavened bread.

The establishment of the State of Israel and the repeated defeats of the Arab armies needed an immediate, plausible, and face-saving explanation. This was readily provided by the Protocols and Mein Kampf which exposed the Jewish conspiracy to control the world. These books confirm Moslem fears and explain their shortcomings. Moslems do not feel alone any more, they belong to the large body of global victims, exposed to the danger posed to humanity by international Jewry, the enemies of God.

Like European anti-Semitic literature, its Moslem counterpart has very little variety. Hundreds of books repeat the same slogans, and cartoonists, directly influenced by the Nazi cartoons, repeat the same drawings of the ugly, inhuman, vicious Jew. Out of the vast literature the following examples chosen at random will suffice.

Anis Mansur, an Egyptian author and close adviser of Egyptian presidents, describing the treacherous "Jewish character" shamelessly gave the impression he was relying on Jewish sources for the "truth" of the blood libel: "The famous Jewish historian Josephus was the first to have revealed to the whole world that the Jews need the blood of other people to make matzot for their holidays. The Jews usually do not butcher the person. They only pierce the skull and then the heart, and drink the blood of the head and the heart together; then they discard the corpse anywhere."

Josephus said exactly the opposite, defending Judaism against the Greek anti-Semites. But Mansur knows that his audience is thirsty for his words, the authority of which nobody questions.

During the Second World War, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, supported by other Moslem leaders, went to Berlin to serve the Nazi propaganda machine and prepare a military force to participate in the "Final Solution." Moslem anti-Semites turn these facts upside down. The comparison of the Jews to the Nazis has become a staple of Islamic alternative history, a major topic in talk shows and a frequent subject of the crude Arab cartoon. In the book Oh Moslems, the Jews are Coming Muhammad 'Abd al-'Aziz Mansur claims that the Jews are no different from the Nazis, ascribing horrendous atrocities to them: the slaughter of babies, the stabbing of pregnant women, the torture and rape of non-Jewish women and so on.

In 1985 King Fahd of Saudi Arabia published the following observations about Israel and the Jews in the popular weekly aI-Musawwar:

"Israel has had malicious intentions since ancient times. Its objective is the destruction of all other religions. It is proven from history that they are the ones who ignited the Crusades at the time of Saladin so that war would lead to the weakening of both Moslems and Christians. They regard other religions as lower than their own, and other peoples as inferior to their level. And on the subject of vengeance –– they have a certain day on which they mix the blood of non-Jews into their bread and eat it. It happened two years ago, while I was in Paris on a visit, that the police discovered five murdered children. Their blood had been drained and it turned out that some Jews had murdered them in order to take their blood and mix it with the bread that they ate on this day. This shows you the extent of their hatred and malice towards non-Jewish peoples."

Dr. 'Abd al-Halim Mahmud, the rector of the famous al-Azhar University, wrote in his book Holy War and Victory: "The Jews have laid down a programme for the destruction of humanity, through subverting religion and ethics. They have already begun to implement the programme with their money, their control of the mass media and their propaganda. They have falsified knowledge, violated standards of literary truth and unscrupulously sought to break down and destroy humanity."

Dr. Salah 'Abd al-Fattah al-Khalidi, in his book The Jewish Personality on the basis of the Koran concludes that "the Jews are liars, corrupt, envious, cunning, fraudulent, treacherous, stupid, despicable, cowards, and misers; they break agreements and treaties, and cause injustice in the world..."

Even medieval Christian anti-Semitic literature, as bad as it was, does not match the viciousness of Arab-Islamic, anti-Semitic literature and the alternative history of the Jews that is based on it. The voluminous, Arab anti-Semitic literature, fills a demand and answers a need. It depicts the Jews as a demonic entity and therefore makes their extermination legitimate. As such, modern Islamic anti-Semitism is at least as vicious as that of the Nazis.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Asher Eder, March 26, 2008.

This is in response to the article entitled "In the Diaspora: Wake-up call" by Samuel Freedman, which appeared March 21, 2008 in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420740916&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Dear Sir,

Your "Wake-up Call", in JerPost of March 21, is quite timely, and to the point.

You wrote therein "To move the masses requires ... an "emotional trigger", and then conclude the article by writing: "For the rest,I can only shudder to think what kind of carnage will be required for the next wake-up call".

Why the "disengagement" of the masses both in Israel and in the USA?

I feel that "disengagement", or rather lethargy, is a "natural" outcome of our government's attitudes toward the conflict itself, and toward the public:

1) "Oslo", presented to the public as hope and road to peace, turned out to be an awful illusion –– and those who recognized it as such right from the beginning were silenced, and branded as chauvinists;

2) Generals who foresaw, and forecast, that the "disengagement from Gaza would "explode right into our face", were ousted;

3) Hopes were nourished that the PLO would be the proper peace partner –– in complete negligence that the conflict is not an Israel/Palestine one, but rather is an Arab/Islamic war against Israel (since the attacks of 7 Arab armies in 1947/48 –– which had its background in the hostile attitude of the Arab League since the 30ies). In that war of the Arabs against us, the locals –– Palestinians –– were made their vanguard.

4) Yet, our –– nonelected –– PM hugs frequently Holocaust-denier and PLO-Chairman (and head of El-Fatch), and presents him as only and true peace partner, while Israel bashing and excitement to Jihad goes on unhindered in the PA territory;

5) That same PM tells us that "Israel is tired of winning wars" –– and proved that attitude in the 2nd Lebanon War;

6) He also tells the peoples of Sederot and of Ashkelon that they will have to suffer more Kassam attacks as there is no other solution –– quite encouraging words for Hamas, and at the same time eroding Israel's will to stem those rocket attacks. (Compare that attitude to Churchill, in 1940 under the German "Blitz". He could then offer the British people only "blood, sweat, and tears" as necessary attitude for winning the war –– instead of "getting tired of winning" as per our PM);

7) I saw him in TV hugging all kind of foreigners, incl. PLO-Chief Abu Mazen, but did not see him hugging victims of rocket attacks –– not in Kiryat Shmonah; nor in Haifa; nor in Sederot.

8) Vinograd seems to get turned into a big show without personal consequences. Even the latter would not be of much advantage unless they manifest also in a decisive change of attitude to the conflict.

All these points, as well as some more in that line, are not very conducive to bolster Israel's morale, nor the engagement of American Jews. Either we'll get soon a new and more competent government –– or else sorry to say we'll need that awful "next wake-up call" you mentioned.

Dr. Asher Eder

Contact Asher Eder at avrason@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, March 26, 2008.

This was written by Dennis Prager and it appeared today on Front Page Magazine
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID= A2DBDBAC-3D26-4348-9E70-37242532C88F Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is the author of four books, most recently Happiness is a Serious Problem (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com.

The long-suffering Tibetans have been in the news. This happens perhaps once or twice a decade. In a more moral world, however, public opinion would be far more preoccupied with Tibetans than with Palestinians, would be as harsh on China as it is on Israel, and would be as fawning on Israel as it now is on China.

But, alas, the world is, as it has always been, a largely mean-spirited and morally insensitive place, where might is far more highly regarded than right.

Consider the facts: Tibet, at least 1,400 years old, is one of the world's oldest nations, has its own language, its own religion and even its own ethnicity. Over 1 million of its people have been killed by the Chinese, its culture has been systematically obliterated, 6,000 of its 6,200 monasteries have been looted and destroyed, and most of its monks have been tortured, murdered or exiled.

Palestinians have none of these characteristics. There has never been a Palestinian country, never been a Palestinian language, never been a Palestinian ethnicity, never been a Palestinian religion in any way distinct from Islam elsewhere. Indeed, "Palestinian" had always meant any individual living in the geographic area called Palestine. For most of the first half of the 20th century, "Palestinian" and "Palestine" almost always referred to the Jews of Palestine. The United Jewish Appeal, the worldwide Jewish charity that provided the nascent Jewish state with much of its money, was actually known as the United Palestine Appeal. Compared to Tibetans, few Palestinians have been killed, its culture has not been destroyed nor its mosques looted or plundered, and Palestinians have received billions of dollars from the international community. Unlike the dying Tibetan nation, there are far more Palestinians today than when Israel was created.

None of this means that a distinct Palestinian national identity does not now exist. Since Israel's creation such an identity has arisen and does indeed exist. Nor does any of this deny that many Palestinians suffered as a result of the creation of the third Jewish state in the area, known –– since the Romans renamed Judea –– as "Palestine."

But it does mean that of all the causes the world could have adopted, the Palestinians' deserved to be near the bottom and the Tibetans' near the top. This is especially so since the Palestinians could have had a state of their own from 1947 on, and they have caused great suffering in the world, while the far more persecuted Tibetans have been characterized by a morally rigorous doctrine of nonviolence.

So, the question is, why? Why have the Palestinians received such undeserved attention and support, and the far more aggrieved and persecuted and moral Tibetans given virtually no support or attention?

The first reason is terror. Some time ago, the Palestinian leadership decided, with the overwhelming support of the Palestinian people, that murdering as many innocent people –– first Jews, and then anyone else –– was the fastest way to garner world attention. They were right. On the other hand, as The Economist notes in its March 28, 2008 issue, "Tibetan nationalists have hardly ever resorted to terrorist tactics..." It is interesting to speculate how the world would have reacted had Tibetans hijacked international flights, slaughtered Chinese citizens in Chinese restaurants and temples, on Chinese buses and trains, and massacred Chinese schoolchildren.

The second reason is oil and support from powerful fellow Arabs. The Palestinians have rich friends who control the world's most needed commodity, oil. The Palestinians have the unqualified support of all Middle Eastern oil-producing nations and the support of the Muslim world beyond the Middle East. The Tibetans are poor and have the support of no nations, let alone oil-producing ones.

The third reason is Israel. To deny that pro-Palestinian activism in the world is sometimes related to hostility toward Jews is to deny the obvious. It is not possible that the unearned preoccupation with the Palestinians is unrelated to the fact that their enemy is the one Jewish state in the world. Israel's Jewishness is a major part of the Muslim world's hatred of Israel. It is also part of Europe's hostility toward Israel: Portraying Israel as oppressors assuages some of Europe's guilt about the Holocaust –– "see, the Jews act no better than we did." Hence the ubiquitous comparisons of Israel to Nazis.

A fourth reason is China. If Tibet had been crushed by a white European nation, the Tibetans would have elicited far more sympathy. But, alas, their near-genocidal oppressor is not white. And the world does not take mass murder committed by non-whites nearly as seriously as it takes anything done by Westerners against non-Westerners. Furthermore, China is far more powerful and frightening than Israel. Israel has a great army and nuclear weapons, but it is pro-West, it is a free and democratic society, and it has seven million people in a piece of land as small as Belize. China has nuclear weapons, has a trillion U.S. dollars, an increasingly mighty army and navy, is neither free nor democratic, is anti-Western, and has 1.2 billion people in a country that dominates the Asian continent.

A fifth reason is the world's Left. As a general rule, the Left demonizes Israel and has loved China since it became Communist in 1948. And given the power of the Left in the world's media, in the political life of so many nations, and in the universities and the arts, it is no wonder vicious China has been idolized and humane Israel demonized.

The sixth reason is the United Nations, where Israel has been condemned in more General Assembly and Security Council resolutions than any other country in the world. At the same time, the UN has voted China onto its Security Council and has never condemned it. China's sponsoring of Sudan and its genocidal acts against its non-Arab black population, as in Darfur, goes largely unremarked on at the UN, let alone condemned, just as is the case with its cultural genocide, ethnic cleansing and military occupation of Tibet.

The seventh reason is television news, the primary source of news for much of mankind. Aside from its leftist tilt, television news reports only what it can video. And almost no country is televised as much as Israel, while video reports in Tibet are forbidden, as they are almost anywhere in China except where strictly monitored by the Chinese authorities. No video, no TV news. And no TV, no concern. So while grieving Palestinians and the accidental killings of Palestinians during morally necessary Israeli retaliations against terrorists are routinely televised, the slaughter of over a million Tibetans and the extinguishing of Tibetan Buddhism and culture are non-events as far as television news is concerned.

The world is unfair, unjust and morally twisted. And rarely more so than in its support for the Palestinians –– no matter how many innocents they target for murder and no matter how much Nazi-like anti-Semitism permeates their media –– and its neglect of the cruelly treated, humane Tibetans.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 25, 2008.

This poll, done by the foremost Palestinian polling agency, demonstrates the misguided nature of the Bush/Rice mid-East policy.

When a significant plurality of Palestinians voted Hamas in to power, and then supported Hamas after the Hamas take-over in Gaza, and now supports Hamas broadly in the West Bank (some commentators contend that Abbas would not last a minute in Ramallah without the support of the IDF –– and his replacement would be Hamas)....I suggest that our State Department and foreign policy advisors should present to our president the obvious and ineluctable conclusion that there can be no negotiated peace with the Palestinians.

This poll tells us that it is NOT merely a group of psychotic leaders and some tiny minority of hate-filled followers who seek the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its Jews. Significant pluralities, majorities, and in some cases significant majorities of Palestinians enthusiastically support the long term goal and vision of Hamas (and Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, and PFLP and DFLP and PFLP-GC and Tanzim and force 17 and Fatah and el-Aqsa Martrys' Brigade and resistance committees and ansar al-Islam and Jayyish Allah and Sayyif el-Jihad and Hizb-ut-tahrir, inter alia) –– the destruction of Israel, the genocide of its Jews, and the ultimate genocide of all Jews world-wide.

It is therefore irrational to assert that Israel should be pressured to make concessions (any concessions, territorial, economic, humanitarian, etc.) to mollify Hamas or redress some wrongs (real or imagined) against the Palestinians. When you are dealing with an enemy who tells you quite unequivocally: "we are not fighting you because we want something from you. We are fighting you because we want to destroy you" (Abbas Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah), where do you think you can begin negotiations? –– "destroy half of us"?

How's that for an opener to negotiations?

The only way to achieve a temporary solution to the Israel-Arab conflict now is to support Israel in its natural and moral and legal right of self-defense; so that Israel can launch a major offensive against Hamas (and perhaps Hezbollah) and destroy these terrorist armies' abilities to destroy Israel.

HOWEVER, that will be only a temporary victory. Because Iran and Arabia will re-constitute Hamas within a few months or years, and will be able to re-deploy these terror armies in order to continue the endless war which they have been supporting since before the State of Israel was created.

But, at least with a temporary victory, Israel and the USA and the UK can have time to pursue political programs with Iran and Arabia; programs which may be able to defuse and redirect the Iranian quest for WMDs, and shunt Saudi support for world-wide jihad and anti-Israel terrorism into some internal reformation.

The only hope we have for a permanent victory for Israel, and for western civilization, in our war against the Jihadist Imperialist supremacist totalitarian triumphalist tyrannical theocratic terrorist Islamic (JISTTTTI) fascist regimes that are arraigned against us, is the invention or discovery of a low-cost renewable clean substitute for petroleum. Such a substitute, once in wide-spread use as an energy source that obviates our need for arab oil, will bankrupt the Saudis and Iranians....and without the billions of dollars that these Islamo-fascist jihadist countries sink in to international terrorism and anti-Israel terrorism each year, the JISTTTTI terror war against Western civilization would grind to a halt....like a car running out of gas.

This is available at IMRA –– Independent Media Review and Analysis (Website: www.imra.org.il).

PSR Poll No. 27 13-15 March 2008
PSR –– Survey Research Unit: Public Opinion Poll # 27
24 March 2008

Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No (27)

These are the results of the latest poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip between 13 and 15 March 2008. Total size of the sample is 1270 adults, 830 in the West Bank and 440 in the Gaza Strip, interviewed face to face in 127 randomly selected locations. Margin of error is 3%. For further details, contact PSR director, Dr. Khalil Shikaki, or Walid Ladadweh at tel 02-296 4933 or email pcpsr@pcpsr.org.

00) From among the following satellite news stations, which one you watched most during the last two months?
1) Al Arabia6.1%
2) Al Jazeera54.2%
3) Al Hurra0.3%
4) Al Manar3.6%
5) Palestine TV11.2%
6) Al-Aqsa TV18.3%
7) Do not watch TV3.0%
8) Others1.1%
9) Do not have a dish2.2%
10) No Opinion/Don't know0.1%


01) Are you satisfied or not satisfied with the performance of Mahmud Abbas since his election as president of the PA?
1) Very satisfied5.5%
2) Satisfied 35.0%
3) Not satisfied 36.3%
4) not satisfied at all 19.6%
5) DK/NA3.6%

02) If new presidential elections are to take place today, and Mahmud Abbas was nominated by Fateh and Ismail Haniyeh was nominated by Hamas, whom would you vote for?
1) Mahmoud Abbas46.4%
2) Ismael Haneyyeh47.0%
3 DK/NA6.6%


03) And if the competition was between Marwan Barghouti representing Fateh and Ismael Haneyyeh representing Hams, whom would you vote for?
1) Marwan Barghouti56.7%
2) Ismael Haneyyeh38.2%
3) No Opinion/ Don't know 5.1%


05) If new elections agreed to by all factions are held today and the same lists that took part in the last PLC elections were nominated, for whom would you vote?
1) alternative1.5%
2) independent Palestine3.5%
3) Abu Ali Mustafa4.0%
4) Abu al Abbas
5) freedom and social justice0.6%
6) change and reform34.8%
7) national coalition for justice and democracy 0.4%
8) third way1.5%
9) freedom and independence0.4%
10) Palestinian justice0.2%
11) Fateh41.6%
12) none of the above/ DK/NA11.4%


06) Hamas carried out a military step in mid June against security headquarters belonging to the PA in the Gaza Strip and succeeded after that in controlling the Strip. Do you approve or disapprove of what Hamas did?
1) Strongly approve7.6%
2) Approve18.8%
3) Disapprove45.3%
4) Strongly disapprove22.2%
5) DK/NA6.1%


07) President Mahmud Abbas dismissed the government of Ismail Haniyeh after the Gaza events about Nine months ago. But the prime minister of the dismissed government remained in his position in the Gaza Strip. Do you approve or disapprove of his decision to stay in his position?
1) Strongly approve12.1%
2) Approve36.8%
3) Disapprove34.7%
4) Strongly disapprove10.2%
5) DK/NA6.3%


08) Moreover, President Abbas appointed an emergency government headed by Salam Fayyad. After the ending of the emergency period and due to the inability of the PLC to convene, the government of Fayyad became a care taker one. Do you approve or disapprove of the continued functioning of this government?
1) Strongly approve4.7%
2) Approve32.9%
3) Disapprove42.2%
4) Strongly disapprove13.1%
5) DK/NA7.0%


09) After the separation between Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas and the government of Ismail Haniyeh remained in power in Gaza and considered itself the legitimate government while president Abu Mazin formed a new government headed by Salam Fayyad and it too considered itself legitimate. What about you, which of the two government you consider legitimate, the government of Haniyeh or the government of Abu Mazin and Fayyad?
1) Haniyehs' government is the legitimate one34.0%
2) Abu Mazin's and Fayyad government is the legitimate one28.8%
3) Both governments are legitimate9.3%
4) Both governments are not legitimate24.4%
5) DK/NA3.4%


10) As an exit strategy for the current crisis between Fateh and Hamas and the split of authority, Hamas's position is to call for an unconditional dialogue with Abu Mazin based on the current status quo. Abu Mazin's and Fateh's position is that he would agree to such a dialogue but under one condition; Hamas must first transfer control of the PA Gaza headquarters to him and return to the status quo ante. Which of the two positions is closer to your view?
1) Hamas's position36.8%
2) Abu Mazin's and Fateh's position 38.7%
3) I disagree with both positions21.9%
4) DK/NA2.7%


11) Tell us how do you evaluate the performance of the dismissed government of Ismail Haniyeh in the Gaza Strip? Is it good or bad?
1) Very Good 14.7%
2) Good 24.7%
3) Neither good nor bad 20.4%
4) Bad19.7%
5) Very Bad14.0%
6) No Opinion/Don't know6.6%


12) Tell us how do you evaluate the performance of the government headed by Salam Fayyad? Is it good or bad?
1) Very Good 4.3%
2) Good 25.7%
3) Neither good nor bad22.0%
4) Bad24.9%
5) Very Bad 16.8%
6) No Opinion/Don't know6.3%


13) In general, how would you describe conditions of the Palestinians in the Palestinian areas in Gaza Strip these days?
1) Very good0.9%
2) Good4.4%
3) So so 6.8%
4) Bad30.1%
5) Very bad 56.8%
6) DK/NA1.0%

14) In general, how would you describe conditions of the Palestinians in the Palestinian areas in the West Bank these days?
1) Very good2.2%
2) Good18.9%
3) So so 24.9%
4) Bad33.3%
5) Very bad 18.3%
6) DK/NA2.4% 15) Generally, do you see yourself as:
1) Religious 48.4%
2) Somewhat religious47.9%
3) Not religious3.4%
4) DK/NA0.3%


16)Generally, do you see yourself as:
1) Supportive of the peace process66.5%
2) Opposed to the peace process17.6%
3) Between support and opposition 15.0%
4) DK/NA0.9%


17) Would you say that these days your security and safety, and that of your family, is assured or not assured?
1) Completely assured 6.8%
2) Assured 30.2%
3) Not assured 48.0%
4) Not assured at all 15.0%

23) With regard to meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and PA President Mahmud Abbas, do you see them beneficial and should be continued or do you see them unbeneficial and should be stopped?
1) Beneficial, and should continue 21.4%
2) Unbeneficial and should stop 74.9%
3) NO/DK3.7%


24) Do you support or oppose the launching of rockets from the Gaza Strip against towns and cities inside Israel, such as Sderot and Ashkelon?
1) Certainly support24.3%
2) Support 39.3%
3) Oppose 26.2%
4) Certainly oppose 6.4%
5) NA/DK 3.9%


25) Who, in your views, is responsible for the continued split in the PA between Gaza and the West Bank? Fateh or Hamas?
1) Hamas 17.0%
2) Fateh 20.8%
3) Both of them 53.8%
4) No one 4.1%
5) Other 2.5%
6) No Opinion/ Don't know1.9%

26) What do you expect to happen now between Palestinians and Israelis, after increase in the level of violence and number of Palestinian and Israeli causalities and at the time the two sides started final status negotiations launched by the Annapolis Conference?
1) Negotiations will resume soon enough and armed confrontations will stop12.9%
2) Negotiations will resume but some armed attacks will continue47.8%
3) Armed confrontations will not stop and the two sides will not return to negotiations34.5%
4) DK/NA4.9%


27) According to the Saudi plan, Israel will retreat from all territories occupied in 1967 including Gaza the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and a Palestinian state will be established. The refugees problem will be resolved through negotiation in a just and agreed upon manner and in accordance with UN resolution 194 which allows return of refugees to Israel and compensation. In return, all Arab states will recognize Israel and its right to secure borders, will sign peace treaties with her and establish normal diplomatic relations. Do you agree or disagree to this plan?
1) Certainly agree8.2%
2) agree57.5%
3) disagree24.8%
4) Certainly disagree6.8%
5) DK/NA2.7%


28A) There is a proposal that after the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and the settlement of all issues in dispute, including the refugees and Jerusalem issues, there will be a mutual recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinians people. Do you agree or disagree to this proposal?
1) Definitely agree5.3%
2) agree51.8%
3) disagree29.8%
4) definitely disagree11.8%
5) DK/NA1.3%


28B) There is a proposal that as part of an Israeli Palestinian final status agreement there will be a mutual recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinian people. Do you agree or disagree to this proposal?
1) Certainly agree5.5%
2) Agree47.9%
3) Disagree33.3%
4) Certainly disagree12.3%
5) DK/NA0.9%


29) And what is the Palestinian majority opinion on this issue? Do most Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza support or oppose the recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinian people at the end of the peace process?
1) Majority supports46.7%
2) Majority opposes41.3%
3) DK/NA12.0%

30) And what is the Israeli majority opinion on this issue? Do most Israelis support or oppose the recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinian people at the end of the peace process?
1) Majority supports40.1%
2) Majority opposes47.8%
5) DK/NA12.2%

33) Now 40 years after the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, what in your view are the chances for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state next to the state of Israel in the next five years? Are they high, medium, low, or none existent?
1) None existent31.1%
2) Low 37.2%
3) Medium24.2%
4) High5.3%
5) DK/NA2.2%

34) And what are your expectations regarding the chances for the success or failure of the negotiations launched by Annapolis conference? Will it succeed or fail in ending Israeli occupation?
1) Certainly will succeed0.4%
2) Will succeed13.3%
3) Will fail49.1%
4) Certainly will fail30.8%
5) DK/NA6.4%

35) Concerning armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel, I..
1) Strongly support 27.9%
2) Support 38.6%
3) Oppose 28.2%
4) Strongly oppose 2.7%
5) DK/NA2.7%


36) And what about the bombing attack in the religious school in Jerusalem inside Israel in the first week of the current month of March in which eight Israeli students were killed in addition to the Palestinian attacker, do you support or oppose this attack?
1) Certainly support 41.9%
2) Support 41.6%
3) Oppose 12.0%
4) Certainly oppose 1.4%
5) DK/NA3.2%



37) And what about the bombing attack in Dimona in Israel in early February of this year in which one Israeli woman was killed in addition to the two bombers, do you support or oppose this attack?
1) Certainly support 34.8%
2) Support 42.6%
3) Oppose 16.9%
4) Certainly oppose 1.6%
5) DK/NA4.1%


38) Which of the following political parties do you support?
1) PPP0.6%
2) PFLP3.3%
3) Fateh30.9%
4) Hamas24.7%
5) DFLP0.3%
6) Islamic Jihad2.5%
7) Fida0.1%
8) National Initiative (Mubadara)1.8%
9) Independent Islamists4.7%
10) Independent Nationalists4.5%
11) None of the above26.1%
12) Other, specify0.6%






From Ethan Bronner, "Poll Shows Most Palestinians Favor Violence Over Talks," New York Times, March 19, 2008.

The pollster, Khalil Shikaki, said he was shocked because the survey, taken last week, showed greater support for violence than any other he had conducted over the past 15 years in the Palestinian areas. Never before, he said, had a majority favored an end to negotiations or the shooting of rockets at Israel.

"There is real reason to be concerned," Mr. Shikaki said in an interview at his West Bank office. His Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, which conducts a survey every three months, is widely viewed as among the few independent and reliable gauges of Palestinian public opinion.

According to the poll, of 1,270 Palestinians in face-to-face interviews, 84 percent supported the March 6 attack on the Mercaz Harav yeshiva, one of Israel's most prominent centers of religious Zionism and ideological wellspring of the settler movement in the West Bank. Mr. Shikaki said that result was the single highest support for an act of violence in his 15 years of polling here. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

See "Gaza celebrates after killing of 8 Yeshiva teens"; Click http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKfwcMIlvpo From Morton Klein, President of Zionist Organization of America:

Referring to the most recent poll, Zionist Organization of America President Morton Klein said the results were not surprising. "This poll, unfortunately, merely confirms the results of innumerable earlier polls, showing Palestinians to approve of terrorism that targets innocent Jewish men, women and children and rejecting peace or co-existence with Israel as a Jewish state. In these circumstances, it is clear that a Palestinian state would be nothing more that the world's newest terrorist state. It would be folly for either Israel or the United States to support the establishment of a Palestinian state under such conditions and it noteworthy that the former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff, Lt.-Gen. Moshe Yaalon, former CIA director R. James Woolsey and pre-eminent Middle East historian Bernard Lewis have all come out in opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state."

From Arutz-Sheva, March 21, 2008, "Israelis Tired of Withdrawals"

A poll commissioned by SOS-Israel phrased the question about future withdrawals: "In light of the results of the Disengagement plan from the Gaza Strip, are you in favor of a continued withdrawal from Judea and Samaria?"

64.9 percent answered that they oppose further withdrawals and 23.9 percent said are in favor. The others would not answer the question. Divided into religious demographics, 95 percent of Hareidi-religious opposed withdrawals, followed by 90.9 of the national religious and 57 percent of the non-observant public.

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 Israel Academia Monitor, March 25, 2008.

This was written by Ami Isseroff and it appeared in ZioNation –– Progressive Zionism and Israel Web Log

Retrospective introduction –– This article was not written to condemn anti-Zionist Jews, but to point out that they will eventually find themselves isolated by the people whose cause they are championing. This is already happening.

Arguably, the most vociferous and effective opponents of the existence of the state of Israel today are anti-Zionist Jews. Who has done more to advance the myth of Zionist "ethnic cleansing" than Ilan Pappe? Who has done more to combat the "Holocaust Myth" than Norman Finkelstein?? Who has been at the forefront at spreading the libel of "Apartheid Israel," if not our own 'dear' Jeff Halper? Who has made hatred of Israel respectable in US Academia if not Joel Beinin? Who has done more to advance the image of Israel as a tool of the colonialist imperialist warmongers than Noam Chomsky? Who has been the ideological soul of the British boycott campaigns, if not Jacqueline Rose? Who has done more to discredit the IDF than Dorothy Naor with her "New Profile" movement? It is the Golden Age of anti-Zionist Jews. All over the world, the watchword is "Just Peace in Palestine." Jews are leading the fight to brainwash the world into thinking that genocide is justice. Anti-Semitism was abandoned by the respectable right; now it is the Jews who must lead the anti-Zionist fight, the struggle to deny the rights of the Jewish people. Surely it is absurd that Jews lead the anti-Zionist movement!

This development, which may seem bizarre, is predictable from the classical Zionist analysis of history. Jews have always been pioneers, going where nobody else wanted to go or could go, and developing fields of endeavor that were neglected by others for lack of motivation or qualifications.

In many lands, as the Middle Ages waned, Jews were the only people who had the education to engage in commerce, and the motivation to do it because they were barred from other occupations. Baruch Espinoza pioneered aspects of modern philosophy that other Europeans could not dare to touch. He was only excommunicated. Christians who dabbled in these matters would have been burned at the stake. In comparatively large numbers, Jews engaged in obscure and nonlucrative pursuits such as theoretical physics, and in the USA, Jews took advantage of the new and risky field opened by the invention of motion pictures. Jews have been at the forefront of movements of social change as well, places where imaginative and bold leaders could gain an audience, while they were shut out of the respectable political movements by non-Jews. Jews, likewise, were at the forefront of the US civil rights movement and the South African anti-apartheid movement. Not surprisingly, Jews took up the Palestinian Arab cause.

Jews bring a special "qualification" to the business of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Only Jews, after all, can advocate the destruction of the Jewish state in liberal circles without risking the charge of racism and advocating genocide. Only Jews can spread nonsense about the "Holocaust industry" without being labeled anti-Semites and neo-Nazis. Only Jews can recycle the tired Nazi accusation that the Jews control the media and the governments of the world without risking the anger of "liberals."

In large part, the Arab Palestinian anti-Israel movement is led not by Palestinian Arabs or anti-Semites, but by Jews. Halper. Beinin, Rose, Pappe, Chomsky. Finkelstein and Klug, rather than Alloush, Abunimah, Fayyad Husseini, Qaukji and abu Youssef, are the intellectual mainstays of the movement to wipe out the Jewish state. Their English is much better, and they can cast their ideas in slogans acceptable to western culture. "Secular Democratic State" sounds so much better than "Drive the Jews into the Sea" to a good progressive, doesn't it? It is hard to label them as "anti-Semites." It is hard to discredit their lies. If a Jew and an Israeli says that Zionists commit war crimes, it must be true.Their appearances and their books and articles are lauded in the Arab world, and reprinted in Al-Ahram and Roz el Youssef alongside the latest "proofs" of the authenticity of the blood libel and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Not since al-Andalus (Moorish Spain) have Jews enjoyed such a Golden Age.

Alas for the anti-Zionist Jews, their fate is sealed, like that of the Jews of Spain and Germany. Zionist analysis can equally well predict the denouement of Jewish anti-Zionism. The same drama has been enacted many times before. The father of Marxist Zionism called it a "Stychic process." Eventually, the new field pioneered by Jews becomes a success. It becomes attractive to non-Jews. The Jews are forced out of commerce or the Communist party of the Soviet Union, or the US civil rights movement or whatever other field they have pioneered. The Jewish department stores and the Jewish industries are "Aryanized." Lenin and Stalin take over from Trotsky and Kaganovich and Babel, and Farrakhan and Obama take over from Spingarn and Goodman.

In the case of the Palestinian quest to destroy Israel, there is a special intrinsic problem with Jewish leadership, especially Israeli Jewish leadership. As Marxists would possibly phrase it, there is a contradiction between the means of social organization (Jews), and the goals (wiping out Jews). The goal of the Palestinian movement, as was made quite clear by its founder, Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al Husseini, was the physical annihilation of the Jews of Palestine, as his mentor, Adolf Hitler, had accomplished regarding the Jews of Europe. Under the influence of Soviet mentors, this goal was modified slightly by the PLO, which originally planned that the "Secular Democratic State" would "only" expel those Jews who had arrived after 1917.

From that point of view, the Halpers and the other Jewish helpers constitute a subversive fifth column. In their mad delusion, they think that the Palestinian Arabs are only against "those other Jews." They seriously intend that the Secular Democratic State will give rights to Jews and allow Jews to live in "Palestine." Of course, there would be no point to the Palestinian "struggle" if that is how it ends, as the Hamas make abundantly clear. Still worse, perhaps, are those Jews who insist that there should be two states, one Palestinian Arab, and the other "Secular Democratic."

Perhaps Jeff Halper, or Ilan Pappe or Dorothy Naor even have the dangerous illusion that they might hold some government post in the Palestinian utopia, as they are so central to the movement right now. Certainly, they may object to getting on the boat or the train when the time comes. After all, they see themselves as part of the "revolution." They are not like those other Jews. If they ever achieve their goal of destroying the Jewish state, it is clear that their fate will be the same as that of the Left Poalei Tzion and the Yesektzia who were purged by Stalin, of Pfeffer and Mayakovsky and all the leading lights of the Soviet Revolution. For Jews, as the Hamas Charter notes, have always been trouble makers. Dorothy Naor and Tali Fahima will no doubt protest against polygamy, wife beating, female circumcision or honor killings, and the democratic Hamas will do to them what the democratic Hamas must do. Perhaps, on the other hand, they will meet their fate believing in the revolution to the bitter end.

The end is already in sight. The stalwart Ibrahim Alloush, who has the courage to say what other Arabs only think, has spelled it out
(see freearabvoice.org/articles/SolidarityfromPro-PalestinianJewsRevisited.htm):

There are plenty of people out there who claim to be 'pro-Palestinian', or to support 'Palestinian rights'...

Nevertheless, not everyone who claims to support us is actually a supporter. Many such supporters actually oppose some of the most crucial things we stand for, except they dislike some of the human rights violations that the Zionists are visiting upon us. That is, they: 1) recognize the right of "Israel" to exist and the alleged right of Jews to settle in Palestine, 2) they oppose our strategy to liberate Palestine, and 3) they especially oppose the armed struggle of Palestinian organizations. Such 'supporters' are not actually supporting us, but simply trying to make themselves feel better...

In some cases, you find Jews claiming to support the Palestinian cause. But when you scrutinize carefully what they stand for, you'll find they simply want what amounts to a 'nice occupation', as opposed to a brutal one. In reality they just wish there could be an occupation without administrative detentions, targeted assassinations, land confiscations, house demolitions, and all the rest. Otherwise, those same 'supporters' try as hard as they could to convince Palestinians to present their case 'in a civilized manner' without resorting to human bombs and military operations, especially against what they call "Israeli civilians". One such Jewish 'supporter' is Noam Chomsky who says that it would be immoral for Palestinians to target even an off-duty "Israeli" soldier!

This makes one wonder whether these Jewish "supporters" are just trying to whitewash the occupation with their own professed guilt, as Jews, or whether they're simply out to present another 'positive' side of Zionism!

Brother Alloush had some good teachers, or perhaps there is only a parallelism induced by the merciless operation of the processes of history and social dynamics. "Not everyone who claims to support us is really a supporter," writes Alloush. There are right-deviationists and left-deviationists hiding in our midst. Agents of imperialism in sheep's clothing –– rootless cosmopolitans. Presently, it will be discovered that Dorothy Naor is unwilling to wear the Dhimmi star, and that Noam Chomsky actually was, as he freely admits, a Zionist, a card-carrying member of the international Zionist conspiracy. Likewise, it will be revealed that Joel Beinin, leader of the anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist camp as former head of MESA (Middle East Studies Association) was likewise a card-carrying Zionist. Perhaps all these people are still agents of the Mossad, who have infiltrated and subverted the Arab Palestinian movement? After all, the clever Elders of Zion have a contingency for every exigency. If they can't control the Palestinians one way, they will do it another way. If the "Jew Zionists" cannot control the American government, they will put forward the Jewish anti-Zionists to do it instead.

There is no getting around the problem. Anti-Zionist Jews are still Jews. What is the point of getting rid of one type of Jew, if at the end of the day, the Arab Palestinians are to be controlled by a different type of Jew? The problem is highlighted by the rise (or rather the recrudescence) of Islamist ideology among Arab Palestinians. As the Hadith observes, before the end of days, the Muslims will kill all the Jews. It doesn't exempt anti-Zionist Jews. A Jew is a Jew and remains a Jew. A Jew is liable to support outlandish and evil notions like the right of Jews to settle in Palestine, or to oppose time honored customs like wife beating or honorable pursuits like suicide bombing. The Jews will try to hide behind trees. But no tree will shelter Tali Fahima or Ilan Pappe or Jeff Halper.

Alloush is an extremist, in the vanguard of the Arab Palestinian movement. He is a Holocaust denier, but no more so than say, Norman Finkelstein, or the Neturei Karteh Jews. Alloush dares to say what others are only thinking. His ideas will achieve popularity first with the "anti-Zionists" like the Stormfront people, but inevitably, they must percolate down to every Arab Palestinian and every anti-Semite who rightly feels that the Jews have not only dispossessed the Arabs from Palestine, but have now dispossessed them from their own genocidal movement. It wouldn't do at all if Eichmann or Himmler or Heydrich had been Jewish.

The Jewish anti-Zionist movement must inevitably fall victim to the nemesis of of the historical dialectic. If the Arab Palestinian movement to destroy Israel succeeds, the Jews who are leading it now will certainly be redundant and undesirable. What use will Tali Fahima or Ilan Pappe or Jeff Halper be in an Arab Palestinian state? If it fails, they will be blamed for its failure. A specter is haunting over the anti-Zionist movement. It is the specter of anti-Semitism. As day follows night, the social contradictions of the Palestinian movement must lead to the exclusion, if not the annihilation, of the anti-Zionist Jews. It is far better for them if it happens sooner, rather than later.

Contact the Israel Academia Monitor organization by email at email@israel-academia-monitor.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Canadian International Peace Project (CIPP), March 25, 2008.

This is from Seth Freedman, Guardian Unlimited, March 24, 2008.

"Even though we're Muslim, the Islamic world has done nothing to protect us", said Yassin, a refugee whose tortured flight from Darfur finally brought him to Israel three years ago. He was one of the first Darfurians to make it into Israel across the border from Egypt, and has dedicated his life to helping hundreds of his fellow countrymen who have made the same perilous journey.

Yassin, a genial 30-year-old former architect, is now director of Bnei Darfur [Sons of Darfur], an organisation which assists Sudanese refugees to integrate into Israeli society, and which last week was finally granted non-profit status by the Israeli government. Sitting in his office in downtown Tel Aviv, Yassin painted a harrowing picture of the way in which Darfurian refugees are mistreated by the uncaring and unsympathetic authorities in Egypt, which is the first port of call of many fleeing the violence in Sudan.

Darfuri children are scared to set foot outside in Egypt for fear of attack, Yassin said, citing the slaying of dozens of refugees after a protest outside the UNHCR headquarters in 2005. "It's not that Egypt doesn't look after refugees in general," he said, "after all, they treat the Somalians very well. However, when it comes to us, they are different. It's racism [that motivates the Egyptian mistreatment]."

It doesn't help that the Darfurians are accusing fellow Muslims of genocide, said Yassin, noting that the Muslim states who support the Sudanese government in turn claim that the refugees are collaborating with enemy states in the West. "All of the Arab countries support the government of Sudan –– our problem is with the Arab League," Yassin stated with a shake of his head at his people's plight. Having watched most of his family slaughtered in a militia attack on his village, he fled the region hoping to find shelter in Egypt, but was soon forced to move on.

After the cold and often violent reception the refugees received at the hands of the Egyptians, Yassin decided that things couldn't be worse on the Israeli side of the border –– despite the anti-Israeli indoctrination he'd been spoon-fed when growing up in Sudan. "The government controlled all of the media back home," he said. "The television stations, the radio, the newspapers... and all of them were very hostile towards Israel. They described it as an enemy state full of killers, and the cause of all of the world's problems."

He smiled at the irony of Israel turning out to be the first country where he and his fellow refugees could finally find sanctuary –– although it was hardly plain sailing at first. "When the army picked me up, I spent five days on their base in a tiny room with five Egyptian men. The conditions were awful, and one of the judges was very cruel, threatening to deport me back to Egypt. She told me that I was I wasn't welcome in Israel because I was from an 'enemy country' –– but in the end I was transferred to a larger prison in the south."

He spent 14 months in jail, where he banded together with other Darfurian refugees and founded an informal support group to assist one another, teaching English, Arabic and Hebrew to those who required educating. After a few months, the Israeli press started picking up the story of the refugee crisis, and soon several NGOs and welfare organisations began campaigning for their release. The UN got involved, and eventually many of the refugees were let out of jail and sent to work on local kibbutzim.

However, once free they faced large-scale exploitation by employers who took advantage of their lack of proper permits and rights, forcing them to work for a pittance and in dreadful conditions. Again, intervention from the UN and local NGOs caused a change of heart on the part of the government, who granted 600 of the 750 refugees with 'A5' temporary residency status, with the remainder receiving protection as asylum seekers.

And the rest is recent history. Yassin and his friends formed Bnei Darfur, and have been stunningly successful in their mission to create a self-sufficient community "that isn't a drain on Israeli society". Every one of the refugees has a job, a house, and access to medical care –– "the only ones without jobs are the ones who've just arrived, and we soon take care of them", he said. The children have been found places at Israeli schools, where they learn Hebrew and befriend their locally-born peers, and the future appears bright for those who have managed to make it into Israel.

Many Israelis took up the Darfurians' cause on the basis that Jews have been denied refuge by indifferent countries throughout history, and that Israeli Jews should remember their own troubled past when dealing with the victims of today. However, whilst the way in which Israel (eventually) received the refugees is to be admired, there is of course the accusation of double standards to be dealt with regarding Palestinian refugees being denied the chance to relocate to the Promised Land.

But the unresolved issue of the Palestinian right of return is not something Yassin wished to be drawn on. As far as he's concerned, Israel has provided for his people in a way that no Arab country would –– and for that he's eternally grateful. And in terms of Israel's image in the eyes of the refugees as well as the outside world, accepting the unwanted Darfurians was both an astute and an admirable move to make.

Contact CIPP at cipp@rogers.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Nathan, March 25, 2008.

This was written by Salim Mansur for the Toronto Sun

Perhaps the most apt manner to describe multiculturalism as anideology and government policy in western liberal democracies would be what the incomparable English writer, journalist and non-conformist, Malcolm Muggeridge, wrote in his 1970 essay, The Great Liberal Death Wish.

Perhaps also no contemporary of Muggeridge (1903-90), nor anyone after him, made as incisive a dissection of the deepening liberal malaise in the 20th century as he provided. He also exposed apologists of liberalism and their untiring efforts to discredit and dissolve the West as a uniquely gifted civilization.

In every culture there are to be found some dissidents or skeptics questioning its legitimacy and moral authority as those in the former Soviet Union –– Andrei Sakharov, Alexander Solzhenitsyn and others not as well known –– did. They exposed the lies of a system that rationalized the organized effort of tyranny to extinguish freedom, and their sacrifice eventually contributed to its demise.

But the oddity about skeptics in the West, as Muggeridge wrote about them and their liberalism, is the death wish to undo a culture where freedom, having sunk deep roots, thrives. They would replace this culture with a pale shadow of one negating all that is noble, life affirming, uplifting and founded on the values celebrated by the Christian church.

This is the great liberal death wish, a twisted psychology of that intellectual class which willingly goes out to buy the lies of a culture that entombs freedom, as was done in the Soviet Union –– and continues in places such as China and Saudi Arabia –– and fashion these lies as a cure for manufactured ills in the West, with the purpose of undermining it.

Muggeridge wrote, the "great liberal death wish arises out of a historical, or maybe biological, necessity, rather than out of any rational, or even irrational, considerations. Civilizations, like classes and families and regimes, degenerate, and so must be wound up."

The strength of the West measured in terms of freedom –– of Prometheus unbound and its creative spirit unleashed soaring upwards despite risks –– resides in its assimilative capacity and openness to share its freedom with those beyond its cultural boundaries seeking the same.

Yet keeping the West strong requires perseverance and vigilance. The spirit that soars also can sag through fatigue, the creative can begin to lose fecundity, freedom can become corrupted in time, and decay can loom over that culture ever larger.

It is in these circumstances that false hope readily may be planted and false remedy readily sold. The curative unthinkingly bought turns out to be medicine hastening the end.

Muggeridge again: "Previous civilizations have been overthrown from without by the incursion of barbarian hordes; ours has dreamed up its own dissolution in the minds of its own intellectual elite."

Multiculturalism is in appearance the most pleasing of liberal barbiturates offered to stave off the West's demographic decline through immigration. For it to work the requirement demanded is suspension of critical and discriminating thinking replaced by politically correct speech that must offend none except, if need be, the patient (the West) requiring the cure.

And so Muggeridge would have said that multiculturalism being one big swindle it is a "sedative rather than a stimulant, a slough rather than a precipice; blurring the edges of truth, the definition of virtue, the shape of beauty; a cracked bell, a mist, a death wish."

To Go To Top

Posted by Daisy Stern, March 25, 2008.

Dear friends,

Kitat Konenut New York will once again be holding our summer training camp. The dates this year will be Friday July 25 through Sunday August 3rd.

Since our successful training camps last summer and in 2006, our membership has increased and our activities have expanded far beyond New York. We now have an active Kita in Los Angeles and other cities are in the planning stages. The terrible attack on Merkaz Harav has increased awareness to the need for active response units worldwide and many more people are volunteering for our training from all over the US as well as Israel, Canada, Australia and other countries.

This year's training camp will include several new Mefakdim (commanders) all veterans of IDF combat units as well as several mid level and high ranking officers. Our training will include basic rifle handling and use, advanced rifle handling, pistol shooting, sniper course, long range rifle, urban warfare techniques, riot control, knife fighting and edged weapons course, pepper spray, batons and other non lethal weapons use, fighting from a vehicle, counter terror techniques, identifying and dismantling IED's, intelligence techniques, paintball battles, krav maga and much much more!!!

Weapons used will be M-4, AR-15, AK-47, M1 Carbine, Mauser 98k, Lee Enfield, Gibbs Jungle Carbine, Ruger 10/22, and others.

There will be 2 Shabbatons which will include shiurim from Rav Chayim Shimon Wharman and other visiting rabbis. There will also be a lecture by an intelligence analyst working with the FBI and NSA to track and monitor Muslim terrorist groups in the United States. There will be discussions on relevant topics such as Zionism, Yishuv Eretz Yisrael, antisemitism, terrorist threats to America, assimilation, intermarriage, kiruv, the second amendment and many other topics.

Who can attend camp?

Any Jew who is over 18 years old, physically fit and mentally sound, with no criminal record. Most campers will be between ages 18 and 26 but Jews of all ages are welcome to join.

This will be our second coed year and we will be having girls at camp. Sleeping quarters will be separate but all training will be coed. We expect all campers to behave in a kosher manner and follow basic principles of tzniut.

What you should bring to camp:

Flashlight, hiking or combat boots, underwear, undershirts, socks, Kippa, Tzitzit, Tefillin, Tallit, Siddur, knife, tent, sleeping bag, pillow, white shirt and dark pressed pants for Shabbat, bathing suit, sandals, towel, sun tan lotion, bug spray, toothpaste, toothbrush, comb, soap, shampoo, camera, pen, small paper pad, water canteen, etc. If you own any firearms please contact us as to whether or not to bring them to camp.

What you may not bring to camp:

Banned items are: illegal guns, switchblade knives, brass knuckles etc, alcohol, drugs (including marijuana), pornography condoms and other inappropriate paraphernalia, non kosher food, pets, unauthorised individuals, etc.

Anyone caught with banned items will have the items confiscated and destroyed. Anyone caught bringing drugs, illegal guns or non kosher food to camp will be expelled immediately and your payment will not be refunded.

How much does camp cost?

The cost of camp will be $400 per person. This will include all food, accommodation, gear and ammunition. In general we expect all campers to attend the entire training session. If for some relevant reason an individual can't be present for all the days we might consider giving a partial discount based on the time not spent in camp.

How do I register?

All those wishing to register should do so as soon as possible. If you have served in the IDF or US military we will consider you for an instructors position. Even if you do not plan on attending camp please forward this email to anyone you think might be interested. To register please contact me or Zerach the Mefaked Kita at zerach@kitatkonenutnewyork.org. For more information log on to our website at www.kitatkonenutnewyork.org

*Note. Mefakdim will be periodically filming the training sessions through out camp. This is for future reference, community relations, and advertising of the activities of the Kita as well as to compare before and after shots of the training to see how campers have improved their fighting skills. If you for any reason do not want us to use your photos for our public relations please let us know and we will digitally blot out your face from all photos before uploading them on our website, publishing them in a brochure or sending them to anyone. If for any reason you categorically refuse to have your picture taken at camp despite our respecting your wish to not advertise your picture online then please do not bother coming to camp. This has caused a disturbance in the past and we do not wish to waste our time arguing with people over which pictures of the training to take or not take.

Beahavat Yisrael

Contact Daisy Stern by email at daisystern1@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Caplan, March 25, 2008.

Pidion Shvuim Alert: No. 5
Two Jewish Brothers Sent to Prison for Protecting Jewish Community!

Danny and Yitzhak Halamish are two quiet young men who under any other circumstances would be regarded as the pride of the Jewish people. They both served in top Israeli combat units, and when they finished the military they fought for Jews under threat of expulsion from the Gaza Strip. They also founded the community of Maalei Rehavam in the Judean Desert.

Today, the brothers await the start of their jail sentence, convicted of aggravated assault by a corrupt police force and a lackadaisical judge. Their appeals of innocence have been rejected by the judiciary.

Are the Halamishes guilty of a crime? Absolutely not. Indeed, the only crime committed was by an army that abandoned the two brothers and an Israeli court system that convicted them without evidence. But the brothers are lovers of Zion and builders of Jewish life in Judea and Samaria. And that makes them dangerous to the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who pressured by Washington plans to destroy Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem over the next year.

The Halamishes, as part of their reserve military service, were members of a security response team organized, equipped and trained by the Israeli Army to help protect their community and surrounding region from Arab attack. On Feb. 21, 2004, the brothers were summoned by another security officer, Baruch Feldbaum, to help expel Bedouins who trespassed into the Jewish community of Sdei Bar and were encamped near a student dormitory. Bedouin tribes in the area had been deemed responsible for the killing of several Jews in the area in previous years.

Under the direction of Feldbaum, the Halamish brothers ordered the Bedouin squatters to leave. The Bedouins refused, and about 20 of them approached the Jewish security officers with sticks and rocks. Feldbaum [NOT the brothers] shot toward the ground when the Bedouins continued to move closer.

The response team later said that it shot in self-defense. An army medic who arrived at the scene determined that nobody was struck by the gunfire, an assertion disputed by the Bedouins.

At that point, the military abandoned its own security team and allowed a police investigation. Feldbaum was sentenced to nine months in prison, but later was pardoned by President Moshe Katsav.

The Halamishes weren't as lucky. Although police refused to conduct ballistic tests or even a lineup of suspects, the brothers were convicted of shooting toward the Bedouins. Danny was sentenced to seven months in prison; Yitzhak, to eight months. An Israeli appeals court said ballistic tests or a lineup weren't necessary. The word of the Bedouins –– who refused to show up to police headquarters to identify their purported assailants –– was enough. The court also rejected a recommendation by the probation officer for community service. The three-judge panel said it wanted the Halamish brothers to go to jail to serve as a lesson to others.

Unless we act, the Halamish brothers will be sent to jail on April 10 and their tiny community of Maalei Rehavam, would be seriously harmed. As we see it, the Halamishes have been abandoned by the army and railroaded by the police and judiciary.

Therefore, we urge you to act as you did so valiantly for Tzvia Sariel. Call, rather than e-mail, the Israel Embassy in Washington [telephone 202-364-5500] and demand to speak to the military attache. Tell him or his aide that you are outraged by the abdication of military responsibility of its own soldiers, who will go to jail because they helped protect Jews. Say that as an American citizen who contributes to the $2.4 billion of U.S. military aid to Israel, you demand the immediate release of the Halamish brothers. Say that you also plan to discuss this case with your member of Congress.

The Olmert government, with an approval rating of near zero, has refused any accountability to the Israeli people and fears only the Bush administration. Unless we act now, there will be many more young Jews in jail. If you agree with this, please act quickly. What could be more important than saving the lives of our fellow Jews?

With Love of Israel,
Datya Itzhaki

[Editor's Note: Update, March 27, 2008, Lee Caplan citing Women in Green:

"Danny and Itzik are supposed to go to jail on April 10th (in less than two weeks) for a period of 8 months. Their "crime" –– defending themselves against Arab attackers.

"Many Women in Green leaders and members know Itzik and Danny personally for many years. Two Israel loving Zionist pioneers, sons of parents who founded the community of Ofrah, they are the salt of the earth. Itzik, 28, is single. He is a carpenter. Danny, 37, is a computer programmer. He is married to Limor, and is the father of Naama, two and a half years old and Yirel, half a year old.

"The very thought that those two youngsters would go to jail instead of the Arabs who attacked them, is simply unbearable."]

Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

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


PM Olmert met with Druze and Circassian leaders to discuss their integration into Israeli society. He was full of plans to help them (IMRA, 3/4/08).

There was nothing about demanding that the Druze stop driving Jews out of a mixed town, stop burning down their houses, and stop ganging up on Israeli police come to arrest suspects.

If he didn't mention it, there will be more of it. They are developing the Arab mentality of all entitlement and no obligation and the gentile mind-set that the Jews may be pushed around.

The leftist false sense of Jewish guilt is bad enough. The obsequiousness of multiculturalism, attempting with futility to appease the Muslims while the Muslims attempt to gain control over the country, hobbles Israeli defense.


Rafi Eitan, in Israel's Security Cabinet, finds the P.A. losing further control of internal security and therefore receding from eligibility for sovereignty. He thinks that Egypt and Jordan may have to take over, there, temporarily, to restore order. Would that mean that Egypt and Jordan could move heavy armors and weapons into the Territories? (IMRA, 3/4/08).

What does he mean temporary? How would he propose getting Egypt and Jordan to move their armies out, if they were not of a mind to? War? Plea?

What does he think would induce them to move their armies in? An opportunity to fight the terrorists? Most countries don't look forward to that. EU forces solve that problem by accommodating the terrorists, as in Serbia, Kosovo, Syria, and Lebanon. Either Egypt and Jordan fight and crush the terrorists, or the terrorists lie low until Israel claims the area is "calm," but as soon as the armies withdraw, the terrorists take over again. Why ask other countries to police Territories part of the Jewish homeland.

Here is what may induce those countries to move their armies in. The Olmert regime may suppose that the foreigners would want to make the P.A. fit for sovereignty before Israelis throw Olmert out and assert the primacy of the Jewish claim to the Territories. I think the foreigners would find it an opportunity to gain intelligence not already provided them by the P.A., Peace Now, and the US embassy. They could place agents in position to impede Israeli defense when Egypt finally invades Israel. They could arm P.A. Arabs and train them to facilitate that invasion.


"At the University of Haifa: Professor of Psychology Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, in addition to his pro-Arab views, proclaimed that the rights to free speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion do not exist in Israel. In this case, why is he is not in jail? Could he tell us how many Arab or Muslim organizations he knows that are able to make similar anti-government statements in their own countries?" (Prof. Steven Plaut, 3/4/08.)

Some of the leftist professors did not agitate much for Arab claims in the Land of Israel against Jewish claims, and did not express so much sympathy for Muslim terrorists, until the EU, foundations, and S. Arabia subsidized such speeches.

It is a tactic of the Left that to seek sympathy by pretending to be repressed, even while they are dominant. Right-wingers and other patriots find it difficult to get their views broadcast or in the major newspapers. They face discrimination applying for jobs in college social science departments. Their demonstrations are broken up by police violently; many Arab riots are not restrained by police.

The tactic is employed by pro-Arabs and by antisemites in the US.


The Bush administration polls the Arabs about matters bearing on US policy. After a few months of violence and negotiations, a survey found that the Hamas leader edged out the Fatah leader, 47% to 46%. Only last December, Abbas led, 56% to 37% (NY Sun, 3/18, p.6).

Those results, furnished by the L.A. Times, are not subdivided for Gaza and for Judea-Samaria. Do they represent rising popularity for Hamas or falling popularity for Abbas? What accounts for the change?

It does seem futile for the West to back Abbas, not that this means they should back Hamas. Back neither. Neither are decent.


Rain has insufficiently filled Lake Kinneret, one of Israel's three main sources of water, this winter. Another source is the mountain aquifer of Judea-Samaria. In the ten years of autonomy there, the Arabs have drawn too much water up, thereby leaving some of the rest unfit for drinking (IMRA, 3/18/08).

This shows what appeasement does to Israel and what is in store for Israel if it relinquishes more control over land. Remember: water is a strategic asset there.


Former Sec. of State Madeline Albright wrote what she hopes the next President will change. Primarily she wants "an end to the politics of fear."

She admits we sometimes should fear danger more, as from Nazism. She admits danger from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, and al-Qaida, which says it wants to kill us, but feels we fear too much. (What is fearing "too much" from fanatics with "nukes?")

Why are we told to be afraid? Albright says it is "so that we might be less protective of our Constitution, less mindful of international law, less respectful toward allies, less discerning in our search for truth and less rigorous in questioning what our leaders tell us. We have been exhorted by the White House to embrace a culture of fear that has driven and narrowed our foreign policy while poisoning our ability to communicate effectively with others."

She thinks we are afraid to consider alternatives. (She didn't suggest any. Is she afraid? Sounds silly, doesn't it?) We became hypocritical, telling others not to possess nuclear bombs, but have many, ourselves. We demand respect for international law, but disregard it. "Hands off Iraq, we warn, while our troops occupy Baghdad." We warn about China's growing military, but spend the most on arms. We talk about the future but ignore climate changes' effect upon it.

Why should we, "with all our wealth and power, seem so afraid of terrorists, rogue states, illegal immigrants and foreign economic competition." Instead of being afraid, we should debate and respect others, and help tackle global problems (Greenwich Times). She wrote more, but just generalized sentiment.

Politics of fear? Doesn't exist. Problem is her politics of head-in-the-sand. Pres. Bush has acted, giving Americans less reason to fear, while his critics ignore the new world war. She makes believe that debating fanatics can somehow cause them to stop wanting to take over the world in the name of their faith. Unrealistic! She does us a disservice to the point that we could get conquered.

As for not tackling global problems, what other problem is greater than the Islamist drive against civilization? Why doesn't she and other critics tackle it? I think Bush did too little, failing to drive home the full danger we face and call for a greater ideological effort and military preparedness. He tried to minimize fear by falsely calling Islam a religion of peace.

Who perceives our country negatively is not shown. Immigrants keep applying and countries hope the US helps free them, as Bush did for Ukraine. Britain, France, and Germany are with us. China and Russia are against us, but for empire or ego. That Islamists oppose us is not our fault. They have been waging jihad more and more, ignored by Bush's predecessor. Let Bush's critics condemn the rogue states for making trouble, not the US for trying to stanch it!

We don't tell all others not to have nuclear bombs, only rogue states that developed them illegally and that are likely to initiate their use and sometimes have threatened to do so when they get them. Shall we not discourage Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Governments that didn't propose strong sanctions are derelict in their duty. She asks why we are afraid of terrorists, rogue states, and illegal immigrants. Because they bombed us, want to bomb us more, and are striving for weapons of mass-destruction. Is that hard to understand?

As for foreign economic competition, let her chide fellow Democrats about that, for they are becoming protectionist, wanting to rescind NAFTA, etc..

Pres. Bush has been seeking to retard legislation and programs against pollution. Unfortunately, his opponents mostly ignore it. What use are they?

Albright accuses the US of violating international law, but gives no examples (and omits jihadi violations). I can. One was Clinton's bombing the civilians of Serbia. Another is the US and NATO detaching Kosovo from Serbia.

We warned other countries not to take over Iraq. We are trying to help liberated Iraq keep its oil and not be turned into a Taliban state. That's bad?

As for the growing military build-up of China –– it protects rogue states with Sec. Council vetoes, threatens war over Taiwan, and is a dictatorship that has murdered as many people as the Nazis and Soviets combined. Since most countries don't preserve international order, the job of world policeman falls on the US by default, not that we always do it. We've rescued Europe repeatedly.

The complaint that Bush promotes fear in order to degrade our Constitution and international law would be paranoid, so I attribute it to poor writing. I think she means that Bush's anti-terrorism infringes on civil liberties. Perhaps, but presidents usually request more power, and this is a new and confused legal area lacking standards. What did his critics do? They were partisan. They neither defined standards nor national security. Instead they denied any national security problem, despite the jihads breaking out in a score of countries, the Islamic drive to take over Western Europe, and the many attacks on the US.

Why doesn't Albright rebuke Bush for supporting Abbas, whose regime glorifies terrorism and is anti-American and whose police, commit terrorism?

We don't debate or negotiate? We have and do. Now Iran is close to acquiring nuclear weapons, leaving us more reliant upon the military option. What does Albright think we should say, and what does she think we should do? If not now, when do we act? If others won't join us, do we wait to be atom-bombed?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, March 25, 2008.
This was written by John Vinocur and it appeared in the today in International Herald Tribune

PARIS: Just before Easter, Osama bin Laden said Palestine could not be won back through "negotiations and dialogue" between Arabs and Israelis, but only by "iron and fire."

Coupled with a threat to Europe, he warned the Palestinians to keep their distance from "blasphemous democracy" and count instead on the power of arms.

Earlier last week, in Jerusalem, Angela Merkel, told Israelis, "Threats to you are threats to us." She reaffirmed that Israel's security was Germany's responsibility and a German "reason of state." In "the hour of proof," Merkel said, these would not be "empty words."

There was much the same tonality in Paris the week before. Receiving the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, at a state dinner, Nicolas Sarkozy pledged, "France will always be on Israel's side when its existence is in question." This came from a president who had accused the French Foreign Ministry in the past of making a tradition of "demonizing Israel."

Where does all this point? Easy answer: to a greater willingness on the part of Europe's leaders –– you can probably count in Gordon Brown –– to state their backing for Israel at a time of a gathering Iranian nuclear threat, warnings to Europe by Al Qaeda, and the possibility of a bloodier Israeli conflict with Hamas.

At minimum, if anything, it is an attempt to seek Israeli moderation by means of public assurances with this tacit subtext: these days, the European Union is not, or is no longer, its reflexive antagonist. The remarks also embody large measures of personal and emotional commitment from both Merkel and Sarkozy.

But what's their practical effect? That answer is harder to define. A German official insisted to me that Merkel's remarks went beyond "merely verbal" comforting. At the same time, Le Monde, a newspaper which consistently suspects Sarkozy's capacity to do or mean what he says, wrote, "At bottom, French Middle East policy hasn't fundamentally changed since Sarkozy's election." But it conceded the climate between Israel and France had improved.

More specifically, you might ask: Since Sarkozy is tying France's return to the unified NATO command to its acknowledgment of the need for greater autonomy of action by a still notional European defense force, could this mean direct European military intervention in the Middle East?

Not if you look at the polls in France and Germany.

The fact is the Merkel and Sarkozy promises, particularly when concerning Iran's threats or the Israel-Palestinian conflict, are well in advance of their voters' opinions.

In a Europe-wide canvass last year by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, these attitudes emerged: For the Germans and French, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, clear majorities think it's likely the mullahs will attack other countries in the Middle East and supply terrorists with nukes.

But majorities in the two countries insist this wouldn't personally affect them.

And if the European Union takes greater responsibility for dealing with international threats –– after all, that's the premise behind a real European military capability –– then the polling says strong majorities in Germany (83 percent) and France (71 percent) oppose committing more troops for combat actions.

And this: According to the weekly newspaper Die Zeit, when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only 3 percent of the Germans are on Israel's side, and 91 percent are in favor of strict neutrality.

How's that for "boundless solidarity" of the kind Gerhard Schröder pledged the United States in the war on terrorism after 9/11?

Actually, Germany since then has been tough and active on Islamic fundamentalist terror.

In her speech before the Knesset last week, after condemning what she called Hamas's "terror attacks," Merkel went directly at the disconnect between the polls and her view of how to respond to Iran's call to eradicate Israel:

"What do we do when a clear majority of people polled in Europe say the biggest threat to the world comes from Israel and not from Iran? Out of fear in the face of public opinion, do we politicians in Europe retreat from further sanctions pushing Iran to halt its nuclear programs?"

"No," she said. "As uncomfortable as it may be, that's exactly what we must not do. If we did we'd have neither understood our historical responsibility nor have been conscious of the challenges of our time. And that would be fatal."

Merkel went on to promise that if Iran didn't bend, Germany would press for new sanctions and said that she would work for a "clear position" from the EU.

Yet, in a ringing speech, that was far from saying she'd press for EU-only sanctions that would escape Russia and China's watering down of measures coming out of the United Nations Security Council.

Germany, in fact, was never mentioned last year by the United States when it talked about putting together an ad hoc coalition of countries willing to levy truly punitive sanctions. The group included France, Britain, Japan, Korea and Dubai.

So what's left in terms of action?

When Merkel was asked in Israel to further define what she now calls (in addition to that of Germany) Europe's responsibility in the Middle East, her answer came up a bit short of the rest of the rhetoric. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported that she said, "On that score, we musn't overreach."

France, on board earlier as an advocate of tough, new ad hoc sanctions in 2007, has not publicly come back to them since.

Neither have the French, after an announcement last year, said anything more about installing a small naval base, facing Iran, in Abu Dhabi.

It's a curious aspect of a relationship often described as contradictory, that Merkel and Sarkozy, if unspoken rivals for leadership in Europe, are offering verbal guarantees to Israel almost in concert.

In these exceptional circumstances –– existential promises given by France and Germany to the Jewish state without obvious caveats allowing for tactical retreat –– it's probably reasonable for the world to regard them with seriousness.

The problem is not knowing just how much.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, March 25, 2008.

This appeared today on the IsraellyCool.com website
(http://www.israellycool.com/2008/03/25/weeds/) and was called "Weeds." It was cross-posted on the Elder of Ziyon website

In 1901, Dwight L. Elmendorf set out to visit Palestine and document it with photographs (his "only weapon," as he put it.) He published the pictures in a 1912 book called A Camera Crusade Through the Holy Land.

The photographs are quite good, but two are of particular interest. The first is of the "Mosque of Omar," the Dome of the Rock:

And another is of the "Wailing Place of the Jews":

Notice the huge amount of weeds poking through the stones in the "third holiest place in Islam." It is desolate, and it looks like it was rarely visited.

Compare the floor of the Temple Mount –– where Jews wouldn't visit because of its holiness –– with the smooth floor in front of the Kotel.

In 1901, it was clear which people venerated Jerusalem and which people ignored it.

To Go To Top

Posted by Sharon Hughes, March 25, 2008.

Obama wants a serious discussion on race, so let's talk about it.

Has Barack Obama been caught showing a prejudiced mentality? Just how much has his controversial pastor impacted him after all?

Obama's 'typical white person' slip, which has the internet and media buzzing, came when he 'clarified' his comments to a Philadelphia radio host on Thursday regarding the following statement he made earlier this week, during his national press conference which was called to 'clarify' his pastor's racist and other inflammatory comments:

"I can no more disown [Pastor Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother –– a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Ought Oh! So he tried to clarify his own statement to 610 WIP host Angelo Cataldi yesterday:

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

Double Ought Oh!

So then he sat down on the Larry King Live show last night to 'clarify' himself again:

"What I meant really was that some of the fears of street crime and some of the stereotypes that go along with that, you know, were responses that I think many people feel. She's not extraordinary in that regard. She's somebody who I love as much as anybody. I mean, she has literally helped to raise me.

But those are fears that are embedded in our culture and embedded in our society. And, you know, even within our own families, even within a family like mine that is diverse, you know, there are those gaps in understanding or the stereotypes that are fed by the news media and fed by what we see around us and, you know, in our popular culture."

Okay, so there may be a family member in our families who is prejudiced in some manner. But, as someone running for the President of the United States –– as a 'uniter' not divider –– someone who is trying to dodge the racist, anti-Semetic, anti-American statements of his controversial pastor...do his 'clarifiying' statements show good judgement? The kind a wise President would make? Are they prejudice-free?

Imagine John McCain or Hillary Clinton saying "typical black person".

You know, there are alot of 'typical white' people who are color-blind who would love to see an African-American as president. I would. But, not one who hasn't got their own racist issues settled. The President of the U.S. has to be the president of all the people, without prejudice, period.

I'd love to see a woman as President also.

But, whether male or female, white or black, red or yellow, or polka-dot...more than anything I want to see a true American patriot...one who loves this country, who believes in our Constitution and founding principles, and esteems all people equally regardless of race, color, religion...for President of the United States.

It's possible. We've had them before. And I believe we can have them again.

What do you use to scrutinize candidates –– How they make you feel? Or what they truly stand for?

Editor's Note: Ted Belman, editor of Israpundit (tedbel1@israpundit.com) has also compiled facts about Senator Obama at
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=579, including this one:

On Feb 15/08, Usama K. Dakdok, President of The Straight Way of Grace Ministry called Obama's Church and reported the conversation:

"I then asked the person who answered what I needed to do to join. She told me that I needed to attend two Sunday School classes in a row and then I would walk the aisle. I replied, "That sounds easy. One last question please. If I am Muslim and i believe in Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him and i also believe in Jesus, peace be upon him, do i have to give up my Islamic Faith to be a member in your Church?"

She answered, "No. We have many Muslim members in our Church."

"Your church has done great harm to this country by covering a wolf in sheep's clothing and that wolf is Senator Barak Hussein Obama."

Sharon Hughes is Founder and President of The Center for Changing Worldviews and a radio talk show host on KDIA in San Francisco, NPLR, RIGHTALK.com, and online at Salem Web Network's Oneplace.com. Her articles appear in many recognized news sites. Contact: sharon@changingworldviews.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, March 25, 2008.

Dear friends,

There are two myths perpetrated on Israelis and the world by defeatist elements in the Israeli society:

1) Israelis are tired of fighting for their defense.

BACK IN June 2005, then vice premier Ehud Olmert gave an American audience his opinion of the Israeli people. "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies," he whined.

2) Arabs have the demographic edge over Israel's Jewish population.

Both are either wrong or grossly misleading and contain more leftist propaganda than factual reality.

Anyone suggesting that Jews are doomed to become a minority west of the Jordan River is either grossly mistaken or outrageously misleading. Demography constitutes a strategic asset, not a liability.

Demographic concerns should be countered by demographic means such as birth incentives and Aliya (immigration), not by withdrawals from lands belonging to us.

Following, the "Tired of Fighting" myth is rebutted by Caroline Glick in an article called "The New Guardians of Israel". It appeared in today's Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420766461&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. [The article by Zimmerman and Wise rebutting the demography falsehood is in the blog item just below this one.]

Your Truth Provider,

Moshav Tzipori, in the Lower Galilee, is a microcosm of the history of the Land of Israel. A regional capital under King Herod, Tzipori was the seat of Jewish learning and the preservation of the Torah through some of the most tumultuous periods of Jewish history.

After the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, refugees from Jerusalem fled to the Galilean town. Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi, who presided over the writing of the Mishna, or oral law, moved to Tzipori from Beit Shearim, and it was there that he codified the six books of the Mishna and died.

The Jews of Tzipori revolted against the Roman Emperor Constantine, refusing to accept Christianity and the city was destroyed. The Jews later returned during the Islamic period. On and off, for the next millennia, Jews settled, were forcibly removed and resettled the city several times under various conquerors of Israel.

During the 1948 War of Independence, the ancient city was the site of a major battle between the new Israel Defense Force and the neighboring Arab villages assisted by invading forces from Syria and Lebanon. The Arabs were routed. In 1949, Moshav Tzipori was founded.

LAST FRIDAY afternoon, the struggle for Jewish control of Tzipori, the Galilee and the Land of Israel as a whole continued on the ancient ground. On that quiet afternoon of Purim, under the blistering sun, three horses stood happily grazing in a field of shrubs and grasses. The only problem with the otherwise pastoral scene was that the horses belong to Arab squatters from the Kablawi clan. In recent years, the Kablawis have built themselves an illegal village of some 20 houses masquerading as storage containers on stolen Jewish National Fund land adjacent to Tzipori's fields. The horses, who entered through a hole cut into the field's fence, pranced about and ate, destroying the field that was painstakingly cultivated for the moshav's cattle herds.

The farmers and ranchers of the Galilee, like their counterparts in the Negev are at wits' end. Fearing Arab riots or political condemnation by the Israeli Left, Arab leaders, the Islamic Movement and their allies abroad, the police and the state prosecutors have simply stopped enforcing the laws against the Galilee and Negev Arabs. Surrounded by increasingly hostile and lawless Arab and Beduin villages, local Jews' livestock and crops are continuously plundered.

They are faced with three equally unacceptable options for contending with this state of affairs. They can do nothing and let their livelihood and lives' work be destroyed. They can pay protection money to Arab criminal gangs, who in exchange agree not to rob them. Or they can try to sell off their lands and abandon agriculture altogether.

The obvious recourse –– filing a complaint with the police –– is an exercise in futility. Thousands of complaints are filed each year. Almost none of them end in indictments or trials. Most of the files are closed by the police due to "lack of public interest."

ON FRIDAY, the field in question belonged to a cattle rancher named Haim Z. Over the past few years, Haim has filed more than 250 complaints against local Arabs from the Kablawi family and from neighboring Arab villages like the Islamist stronghold Mashad with the police. None have ever gone anywhere. Last year, a helpful police officer recommended that Haim simply start paying protection money.

Last year Haim told his son that he had had it. The son of the moshav's founding generation, Haim said that he just couldn't go on anymore. The state's refusal to protect Jewish property rights had forced him to devote all of his energies to playing cat and mouse games with Arab poachers. He couldn't invest in his herd. He couldn't develop his land. All he could do was sit by and watch as year in and year out, his lands were plundered, his cattle stolen and the work of his life and his father's life was destroyed.

HIS SON, a 23 year old soldier in one of the IDF's elite commando units decided that it was up to him not only to save his father's farm, but to stem the tide of Arab infringement on Jewish land and property rights. Due to his position in the IDF, his name is classified. We'll call him J –– for Jew.

In response to his father's desperation, J. took a storage container to a hilltop that overlooks Tzipori's fields, the surrounding Arab villages and the access routes to the moshav's fields. He placed a sofa, a bookshelf full of Jewish history books, religious texts and philosophy classics, and canned food inside and moved in during his furloughs from the army. Rather than hang out with his friends, he began standing guard. He confronted every Arab he caught infiltrating the moshav's fields, and both filed complaints with the police and chased them away.

Given his impossible schedule, J. enlisted his friends to help out. The sons of other desperate farmers, who also serve in combat units, they joined him enthusiastically. Within months, J. had set up an organization of more than a hundred young volunteers –– soldiers, college students, and high school students from his moshav, other moshavim in the lower Galilee and surrounding non-agricultural communities.

He called the organization, Hashomer Hayisraeli Hahadash –– or the New Israeli Guardsmen. The original Hashomer, or Guardsmen was established in the Galilee in 1909 for the same purpose –– protecting Jewish farming communities from Arab marauders who demanded protection money from the farmers. It was the progenitor of the Haganah, which in turn, became the Israel Defense Force.

As J. puts it, "We're not simply a security service. We see ourselves as a new movement. Our activities rest on three foundations: securing the land, expanding our operations throughout the Galilee and the Negev, and teaching Zionist and Jewish values to our members, our communities and the general public."

TZIPORI, ONE of the stops of the Cross Israel Hiking Trail, is a popular destination for school groups, youth groups and just regular hikers. J. has organized visits to his guard post for thousands of hikers over the past year. During their visits the hikers listen to lectures about the New Guardsmen, about the Jewish history of the Galilee and the development of agriculture in the area, and topics of general interest provided by local residents, politicians and professors.

Friday afternoon, after noticing another encroachment on his father's field, J. called the police at the Nazareth police station. Joined by two of his fellow guardsmen, who are also sons of farmers and soldiers in commando units, they waited in the sun for over an hour for the police to arrive and planned their moves. They approached the horses with reins and bits.

"We will seize the horses and bring them back to our stable. If the Kablawis pay the damages, then I'll give them back, if not, I'll sell them," J. explained.

As the young men approached the horses, Yasser Kablawi, the head of the clan appeared. According to Haim, over the past year, the Kablawis have trampled his fields with their animals on more than 20 occasions.

Haim, who arrived at the scene some 10 minutes before the police made their grand appearance turned toward Kablawi and said, "Why are you doing this?"

"This land belongs to the JNF, not to you," Kablawi said.

"Why are you lying? I sat in your home with the JNF inspector months ago, and he told you straight that this is my land. You know you are stealing from me, and you're doing it while you're illegally squatting on JNF land. You've caused me tens of thousands of shekels in damages by trampling my fields today alone, and you know it."

By the time the police arrived, J. and his friends had roped one of the horses. Kablawi was joined by three grandsons and four sons. J. was joined by another seven Guardsmen. It was a standoff.

THE POLICE, who were informed of the presence of a journalist at the scene, acted with some resolution. After speaking with the JNF inspector, they explained to Kablawi that he could either sign a statement acknowledging that the land belongs to Haim and that he would be arrested if he trespassed again, or they would allow Haim to seize his horses. Kablawi signed.

J.'s activism is not just a personal quest to save his father from economic ruin. "If it were just about me and my family, my brother and I could take care of the thieves. They'd leave us alone. But then they'd just move on to our neighbors. It isn't about one family. This is a question of control over the land of Israel. The state is weak. We need to be strong if we want to remain here."

Last month, J. registered the Guardsman as a non-profit organization. He has a grand vision for the future.

"In the space of just a few months, I have brought in thousands of people, exposed them to our mission. I have more than a 100 volunteer guards. We have reduced theft by 80 percent.

"I want to raise money to buy night vision goggles and some all terrain vehicles to do proper patrols. I'd like to be able to give students scholarships so that they can guard and study at the same time. I've been in touch with farmers and ranchers in the Negev and they are anxious for us to expand to the south. I believe that within five years, the Guardsmen can end the protection rackets."

BACK IN June 2005, then vice premier Ehud Olmert gave an American audience his opinion of the Israeli people. "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies," he whined.

Young people like J. and his colleagues, secular, yet deeply rooted Jewish sons and daughters of Galilee and Negev farmers, like their religious friends prove everyday that Olmert was not speaking for his countrymen. Whatever messes Olmert and his colleagues in the government still manage to make before they are finally thrown from office, it is absolutely clear that these young people and millions like them are willing and able to clean them up for themselves, their countrymen, and for the next generation of Jews in the land of Israel.

[Editor's Note: Emanuel Winston writes: "Many have written to ask how to send money for The New Guardians of Israel. The best way to contribute to any of the many deserving and needy groups who are trying to defend themselves and other Jews who are being persecuted or attacked in Israel is to
Send a 501-C3 tax-deductible contribution to:
attn: Hadassah Marcus, 980 6th Avenue 3rd Floor,
New York, NY. 10018.
MEMO INFO: for "Hashomer Hayisraeli Hahadash" –– or the "New Israeli Guardsmen".

BE SURE TO MARK IN THE MEMO the name of the organization.

There are many other urgent needs in Israel. When you are so moved,
send your contribution to THE CENTRAL FUND FOR ISRAEL, and mark the memo for the NEED you wish to assist.
All monies –– every penny –– is sent quickly & efficiently to those in need.]

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, March 25, 2008.

"Over an 11-year period the Palestinian Census Bureau estimated 560,000 more births than recorded by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Health. Furthermore, a simple fact check at the United Nations website revealed that fertility rates ranked 20th for the Gaza Strip and 50th for the West Bank."

Enclosed you'll find a Spring 2008 OpEd, by Bennett Zimmerman and Michael Wise, published by "inFocus" quarterly of the Washington, DC-based "Jewish Policy Center" (http://www.jewishpo licycenter. org/article/ 111).

Bennett and Michael are members of the Zimmerman-led the "American-Israel Demographic Research Group" (AIDRG), which has published a groundbreaking study on Jewish and Arab demography. The study documents a shift from Arab to Jewish demographic momentum. It replaces groundless fatalism with reality-based optimism, contributing to Israel's national security, Aliya, tourism and overseas investments, and upgrading the state of mind of Israel's supporters (http://www.biu. ac.il/SOC/ besa/MSPS65. pdf).

Anyone suggesting that Jews are doomed to become a minority west of the Jordan River is either grossly mistaken or outrageously misleading. Demography constitutes a strategic asset, not a liability.

In an historic and pivotal speech before the Knesset in May 2003, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon shocked his nation by announcing that Israel would withdraw from the Gaza Strip and large parts of the West Bank to demographically defendable lines in light of forecasts that Israeli Jews would soon lose their majority west of the Jordan River.

This was a striking turnabout for Sharon, who had established his reputation as a security hawk, and was widely considered to be the father of Israel's settlement movement. After decades of backing the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the former general was convinced that Israeli control in the disputed territories would soon force Israel to choose between its Jewish character and its vibrant democracy.

Subsequent Israeli policy has been built upon the same premise. Israel's current Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, continues to believe that Jews will soon be outnumbered in their own land. This has been an important rationale for the renewed land-for-peace negotiations with the Fatah-backed Palestinian Authority in which Israel is considering painful concessions that may impact its long-term security. However, the forecasts, based largely upon numbers provided by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), are wrong.

The New Palestinian Census of 2007

The newest Palestinian census, released in February 2008, reported that there are now 3.71 million persons living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. However, this figure includes persons living overseas, persons twice counted, and projections that have spooked successive Israeli governments in recent years.

According to corroborative reports gathered from the PCBS, other Palestinian Agencies, Israeli authorities, and third parties, the recent Palestinian census numbers themselves are still inflated by as many as 1 million persons. After removing twice-counted persons and individuals not currently living in the territories, the population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip totals no more than 2.7 million people.

Original Sin: The Palestinian Census of 1997

The current PCBS data is wrong because it does it not reflect corrections the PCBS itself noted in its original census of 1997. That census included Palestinians who had left over the years, but who were issued identification cards during Israel's Civil Administration. According to the Oslo Accords, these persons had preferential rights to return to the territories. However, the PCBS included these individuals in their figures even if they were absent for decades. Using this data, the PCBS arrived at a faulty estimate for the West Bank and Gaza population totaling 2.8 million persons.

International supervision, however, required the PCBS to define the methodology that helped it arrive at its final numbers. Once it was understood that the PCBS augmented its numbers by including 325,258 residents living abroad, and 210,000 Jerusalem Arabs already counted by Israel, it was clear that the PCBS 1997 Census should have totaled 2.2 million persons. This number essentially confirmed Israel's estimated figure of 2.1 million persons living in the territories, based upon school records, the re-issuance of identification cards, and Israel Border Police records.

Curiously, the Israeli government did not adopt the adjusted figures. Rather, successive Israeli governments worked with the faulty data first provided by the PCBS.

Projecting an Expanded Population

Successive Israeli governments also accepted at face value other faulty data produced by the PCBS, including projections for a rapidly-expanding population base. Not only were the projections based upon the incorrect numbers furnished in the 1997 PCBS census, but they were also based upon inaccurate projections of growth for non-residents, as well.

For one, the PCBS harbored incorrect assumptions about population projection. The overall growth projections became so great that the West Bank and Gaza Strip were commonly described as experiencing "the highest birth rates in the world." However, a recent World Bank report noted declining student enrollment, as did annual reports of the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Education. These, in turn, confirmed lower birth levels as recorded by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Health.

Over an 11-year period, however, the Palestinian Census Bureau estimated 560,000 more births than recorded by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Health. Furthermore, a simple fact check at the United Nations website revealed that fertility rates ranked 20th for the Gaza Strip and 50th for the West Bank. An American University of Beirut study also corroborates a significant decline in Palestinian fertility levels, especially in the West Bank, based on extensive and large-scale household interviews and registration records of births (including overseas residents).

There were also wrong projections for immigration. While Israeli border records indicated that the territories were experiencing net emigration between 10,000 and 20,000 persons each year, the PCBS figures included a 1.5 percent growth rate each year for non-existent immigration. In fact, over an 11-year period, the PCBS included in their projections 458,000 immigrants who did not arrive, and failed to remove from the PCBS projection 170,000 emigrants. Nor did the PCBS remove the 105,000 Palestinians who officially moved to Israel.

The PCBS defended these faulty numbers with arguments about the "right of return" for those who had been abroad for years. This only underscored the lack of professional standards employed. Israel, for example, regularly subtracts residents who leave the country for a period of one year from its population count. It only adds them again when they reestablish residency.

The most recent Palestinian census also raised a red flag when it counted 208,000 Arabs living in Jerusalem. Israel currently reports that 254,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem. The discrepancy suggests that the PCBS calculated 46,000 Jerusalem Arabs living in adjacent West Bank suburbs. If so, those residents may have been counted twice; once by the PCBS census excluding Jerusalem and once by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS).

Shifting Demographic Momentum

Today, in Israel, there are 5.7 million Jews and 1.45 million Arabs, with another 1.5 million Arabs living in the West Bank. With the Gaza Strip fenced off and separated from Israel, Jews now enjoy a 2 to 1 majority in Israel and the West Bank.

The demographic momentum has also recently shifted. Since 2000, Jewish fertility and immigration have been above, and Israel Arab fertility has plummeted below, all scenarios considered by Israel's demographers and the ICBS. Specifically, Jewish births have grown by 40 percent since 1995, while total Arab births have fallen back to decade-ago levels throughout Israel and the West Bank.

Large segments of the Orthodox Jewish population display the highest fertility rate at 4.8 births per woman, followed by Arab groups at 3.5 births per woman, while the large secular and traditional Jewish majority displays rising fertility rates of 2.2 births per woman. The latter group has become the determinant factor propelling Jews beyond the modest expectations set by Israeli demographers.

Moderate but persistent net Aliyah (new Jewish immigration minus emigration plus returning Israelis) at current levels of 20,000 per year are sufficient to keep Israel's Jewish majority steady until 2025, when the current Jewish baby boomers begin to have children. The bottom-line shows Jews holding a strong demographic advantage today in Israel and the West Bank, exclusive of the Gaza Strip.

Establishing Defendable Political Borders

Israel's strong Jewish majority should be considered an historic 120-year achievement of modern Zionism, and not an advantage to be traded away.

Only one scenario exists by which Jews can lose their strong position: open Arab migration into the West Bank. Israel must not allow a situation whereby West Bank Arabs link up politically with Arab populations beyond the Jordan River. In this scenario, Israel could face a renewed demographic challenge.

West Bank Arabs currently encompass only 16 percent of the total population in Israel and the West Bank. The Jewish state can thus weigh its options on how to deal with this territory. It need not tolerate strategic Arab threats against her democracy based on false projections.

Armed with false figures, Israel's political leaders could make needless concessions while negotiating Israel's final borders. Armed with correct ones, Israel has an opportunity to confirm and protect the strategic demographic advantage it enjoys today in Israel and the West Bank.

The correct numbers, and not dramatic claims of a "demographic time bomb" that have so thoroughly terrified Israeli leaders for more than a decade, should provide a firm foundation for Israel to create solutions for peace and security from a position of strength.

Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 25, 2008.

Yesterday I wrote about concessions to the PA that Barak was eager to make before the arrival of Secretary of State Rice next week.

Today we have news of more of the same. Barak has now decided that he will permit 600 PA police officers into Jenin. They will be responsible for maintaining law and order during the day, while the IDF will retain security control and will operate at night.

Barak explained that "It is clear to us all that we must exhaust all possible ways of assisting the negotiations with the Palestinians. We must ease restrictions on the Palestinians whenever it does not conflict with defense, even at the price of a calculated risk."

Responded MK Yuli Edelstein (Likud), "The defense minister, who is being guarded and secured 24 hours a day, is putting the citizens' safety at risk."

His point is well taken: it's easy for Barak to talk about risks to others.

In truth I'm not certain how much risk this entails. Not if the IDF is still on the scene, still responsible for security, and able to operate against terrorists every night. The Palestinian police, who are being trained in Jordan, will be responsible for stopping hooligans from harassing people on the street, preventing the illegal shooting of guns, and the like.

What MK Edelstein is referring to, however, is not the failure of PA police to stop terrorism, but their complicity in terrorism: "...one can ask the Zoldan family, the Rubin family and the Amichai family, which turned into victims following the murders of their sons in recent months by PA policemen."

What infuriates me is the entire notion that we "must" do everything possible to assist the negotiations, even if it comes with a risk to Israeli citizens. Says who?


A little bit more "wait and see" may be necessary, but right now the prospects for that reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is looking dim. The stumbling block is Hamas's unwillingness to give back Gaza.

Whatever happens, however, I wish to make one exceedingly important point: Abbas was willing. His stipulation involved a matter only of his party's power and control. Be aware that he never stipulated that Hamas had to agree to negotiations, to a two-state solution, or to a renunciation of terrorism. He is on the record as saying he has never asked Hamas to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Had Abbas gotten Gaza, he would have merged both government agencies and security forces with Hamas. And this tells us a great deal about Abbas.


The Syrians were supposed to be holding a major Arab summit in Damascus next week. But the Saudis have announced that they won't be attending, and several other Arab states are likely to follow his example. Syria now finds itself out of favor with many Arab leaders because of its ties to a much feared Iran. There is speculation that the summit may even be called off.


At the same time, Abdullah, the very same Saudi king who decided to stay away from Damascus, has also decided to hold an interfaith conference that would have the theme of "respect among the religions."

"I invite representatives of all the monotheistic religions to meet with their brothers in faith," he said. "With God's help we will meet our brethren from other religions, including those who believe in the Torah and in the Gospel, in order to find ways to defend humanity."


Please understand: Saudi Arabia is one of the most religiously repressive and intolerant of nations. Jews aren't allowed in, and there has been a ban on the building of churches.

The report of this announcement explains that Abdullah is concerned with decreasing morality, and problems such as the disintegration of the family. But I wonder how there might be "disintegration of the family" in a country where women are not allowed out of the house except in the company of a male relative.

Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi may have enthused that "Our hands are extended to any peace initiative and to any dialogue that will bring about an end to terrorism and violence. I have said on numerous occasions that the true path to the peace that we long for is through interfaith dialogue."

But I'm not ready to go there yet, and can only wonder what the hidden agenda is.


I strongly recommend "U.S. Aid for Terror," by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen:

"The CIA has apparently assumed the Palestinian terrorist-training role previously held by the former Soviet Union. Since 1994, the CIA armed and trained thousands of Palestinian 'security forces,' who subsequently joined every Palestinian terrorist organization.

"CIA Palestinian training success is best described by a member of the PA's Chairman own security unit, Force 17, officer Abu Yusef: 'The operations of the Palestinian resistance would [not] have been so successful and 'would not have killed more than 1,000 Israelis since 2000, and defeated the Israelis in Gaza without [American military] trainings,' he boasted in August 2007...

The PA received 'the highest per capita aid transfer in the history of foreign aid anywhere,' according to former World Bank country director for Gaza and the West Bank, Nigel Roberts. Not surprisingly, hundreds of thousands of Gazans spent more than $300 million in less than two weeks shopping spree, after Hamas blew up the border with Egypt. Yet, the Palestinian economy is in ruins, Why?

In March 2007, PA Prime Minister and former World Bank official Salam Fayyad, told London's Daily Telegraph : 'No one can give donors that assurance' that funds reach their designated destinations. 'Where is all of the transparency in all of this? It's gone.' Controlling Palestinian finances, Fayyad concluded, is 'virtually impossible.'

Palestinian violence has escalated since the 1994 PA establishment and PA officials have produced an unbroken record of unfulfilled promises and outright deception. Yet President George W. Bush in his January 28 State of the Union Address, reassured the Palestinians that 'America will do, and I will do, everything we can to help them achieve...a Palestinian state by the end of this year.'"
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID= 1F448DBE-1921-4399-AE0D-686FCD4C378F

Americans, are you really furious yet?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, March 25, 2008.

"Police later admitted to a Jerusalem magistrate that there was no reason for the arrest of the girls."

This article was written by Elli Rodan, editor of IsraeliJustice.com; it appeared today in

JERUSALEM –– For the young Jewish girl, Z., her night in jail was an experience she never learned in school.

Arrested at an anti-government demonstration, the Jewish teenager learned first-hand that the harsh policy of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert against Jewish dissent.

In treatment that jurists deemed harsher than that for alleged violent criminals, Z. and her friends were denied food, water and medical treatment and thrown into horrible conditions.

"They [police] took me to the jail in the Russian Compound [in Jerusalem] and I waited with the other two girls in a very small room with bars on the window," Z. said. "After a long wait, they took me for a body search." Z. recounted that she spent much of the night being shunted back and forth between the police station and the jail.

"Then they put me in a room while they looked for a holding cell with an old blanket and a mattress," Z. said. "Then they put me in a cell with two other girls and an old woman. She smoked all the time and I couldn't breathe."

Z.'s account has been verified by the Israel Bar Association. In a report by the Prisons Service Committee of the Israel Bar Association, the conditions in which Z. and four girls arrested with her were held were deemed "inhumane."

The conditions of their imprisonment are "harsh, inhumane and illegal," the report said.

The report said that police and prison guards had conditioned food, water and medical attention on the minors agreeing to identify themselves.

"Medical attention and food and water were conditioned on the disclosure of the girls' identities," the report said. "Such conditions are baseless and are a serious violation of their rights."

The report also detailed how the girls were given "stinky, soiled, military blankets" and they shared a cell with an adult woman who was a chain smoke. The cell "was full of cigarette smoke and had no ventilation aperture," the report said.

The five girls, ranging in age from 14 to 17, were arrested on March 16 at the end of a demonstration on Jerusalem's Promenade, located in the East Talpiot neighborhood. The demonstration was in protest against the government's refusal to destroy the home in the adjoining neighborhood of Jabal Mukhaber of the Arab attacker, Ala Abu Dheim, who killed eight Jewish teenagers on March 6 in the Mercaz Harav seminary in Jerusalem.

Witnesses said that most of the 22 people arrested at the demonstration were minors and were simply grabbed by police.

Z. said they were given some bread and water during the night but prison wardens and police threatened them that food and water and medical attention would be withheld if they didn't identify themselves.

"Early in the morning they woke us up to stand to attention and told us that we had to go to court," Z. said. "I sat there waiting for them but they didn't come and at 10.00 am they gave us two slices of bread and a cucumber."

Z., who had sustained injuries during the demonstration, complained to prison guards that she was feeling sick but was denied medical treatment.

"I was sick so I asked for tea from the prison guard, Z. said. "He told me there weren't any cups so he gave me tea in the cup belonging to the old woman in the cell and she was angry with me."

Z. said that prison guards assured her that she would be able to see the doctor but then said he was unavailable.

. "We were supposed to see the doctor and he would be able to get me a cup of tea," Z. said, "but they [prison wardens] told me that he wasn't available."

Z. said that they were given stale pasta but later forced to eat with their hands.

"Then they [prison guards] gave us some old yellow spaghetti to eat," Z. said. "Then a female prison guard said that if we didn't identify ourselves, we wouldn't get any more food to eat. After we finished eating we threw out our plastic spoons."

Z. said that the situation improved after two attorneys from the Israel Bar Association spoke with the girls.

"Then the two lawyers came and they [prison guards] gave us some more food," Z. said. "We asked for more spoons but the prison warden told us that we had thrown out our spoons and now would have to eat with our hands."

Police can hold people for up to 24 hours before bringing them before a judge to extend their remand and Z. was released 20 hours after her arrest.

"Then they called me to sign the agreement and put me in a closed room and shut the window slit," Z. said. "I waited for hours for someone to get me out."

Police later admitted to a Jerusalem magistrate that there was no reason for the arrest of the girls.

The Prison Services Committee, headed by attorney Michael Attiya, has recommended submitting the report to Public Security Minister Avi Dichter, Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann and Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to correct the civil rights violations.

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, March 25, 2008.
This was written by the Jerusalem Post staff and it appeared yesterday as an editorial.

US Vice President Richard Cheney is not known for making flamboyant speeches, but sometimes less is more. If the US had limited itself to the gist of what Cheney said in Jerusalem on Saturday night, and to elaborating in this same spirit, it is likely that the prospects for peace and moderation in this region would be substantially greater.

Standing with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Cheney opened by noting Israel's 60th anniversary and calling "the state of Israel's rise out of the ashes of World War II... one of history's great miracles." He also found it remarkable that "Israel has survived these six decades, despite often violent assaults against its very existence."

Then, in what was perhaps his key observation, Cheney noted that: "History has clearly shown that when encountered by Arab partners like Anwar Sadat and the late King Hussein of Jordan, who accepted Israel's permanence, and are willing and capable of delivering on their commitments, Israelis are prepared to make wrenching national sacrifices on behalf of peace. I have no doubt this is equally the case with Palestinians." Much of this may seem so basic as to be banal. But the pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace is not really built on these basic premises, even as practiced most of the time by the US, let alone Europe and the United Nations.

There are, it should be understood, two basic models for looking at the conflict, each of which leads to different policy approaches. The standard model is that Arabs and Israelis have been fighting for years and that blame for perpetuation of the conflict lies with both sides, or perhaps mainly with Israel, since Israel is the "occupying power" and the Palestinians are seeking independence within land held by Israel.

The second model is almost nonexistent in diplomatic circles but was instinctively expressed by Cheney and is taken as axiomatic by the many Americans who sympathize with Israel. This model holds that the Arab world opposed Israel's creation, tried many times to destroy Israel, and still has not come to terms with Israel's right to exist. It is this Arab rejection of Israel, not a supposed Israeli refusal to allow the creation of a Palestinian state, that is the true obstacle to peace.

At first glance it may not seem like there is much practical difference between the two models. Both seem to be built on the idea that there should be two states in the sliver of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The issue of how to apportion blame for the status quo can seem petty, or academic, or an irresolvable matter of opinion. But there is a greater practical difference than meets the eye. Indeed, a peace process built on the second model would look substantially different.

THE QUESTION, ESSENTIALLY, IS WHETHER THE CONFLICT IS ABOUT BORDERS OR EXISTENCE. If it is about borders, then it is a matter of pressing "both sides" to negotiate a deal. But if the heart of the matter is an Arab refusal to accept Israel in any borders, than the focus must be on compelling the Arab world to take that fundamental step.

A peace process designed to produce Arab acceptance of Israel would start with simple statements of the problem. The US might state that: "Israel has accepted and seeks to implement the two-state solution. So the principal obstacle to peace is the remaining rejection among many Palestinians and within much of the Arab world of the legitimate national rights of the Jewish people to their own state, the State of Israel." The next important step would be to demand that the Arab states lead by example, rather than waiting for the divided and radicalized Palestinians to move first. Indeed, the Arab states are behind, in that Mahmoud Abbas routinely meets Israeli leaders, but the leaders of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states will not.

The US could also start routinely stating that the demand of a "right of return" to Israel, rather than to a future state of Palestine alongside Israel, is tantamount to rejecting Israel's right to exist. This would help expose the double game of those who claim to accept Israel, yet push for Israel's demographic destruction with greater fervor in Arabic to their own people. American reticence on this may seem to help Abbas in the short run, but it is harmful to the cause of peace.

UCI –– The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) –– is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by Hope Winters, March 24, 2008.

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

I'm working in partnership with Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy on an important new campaign to alert Congress and the public about the rapid adoption of Sharia Law in the United States and Europe in the name of political correctness and petrodollar diplomacy.

The 9-11 Jihadists who flew planes into towers were driven by Shariah Law and the mandate to kill "infidels who have invaded Arab lands". The violent reaction and embassy fires in response to the "Mohammad cartoons" are justified 100% by Shariah Law. Under Shariah law, a British schoolteacher who allowed her young students to name a teddy bear "Mohammad" was recently sentenced to 200 lashes. Muslims and non-Muslims all over the globe who do not submit to Shariah Law are facing intimidation and threats. Muslim women especially face terrible oppression under Shariah Law, the law imposed by the Taliban, the Saudis and Iran.

In the name of "religious freedom", Shariah Law, a political doctrine in which state and church are one, is creeping across America. Prayer rooms and foot baths have been installed on several U.S. university campuses, in airports, even as nativity scenes or other Judeo-Christian symbols remain forbidden. There have been many incidents of Muslim taxi drivers throughout the U.S. refusing passengers carrying alcohol, and blind persons accompanied by Seeing Eye dogs. Calls of domestic violence by American Muslim girls and women are not being pursued with rigor because U.S. authorities feel trapped in a religious freedom quagmire. (Shariah Law allows for the beating, and even honor killing of disobedient wives and daughters.)

British Common Law too is bending to Shariah law when 4 weeks ago, it was announced that multiple wives of polygamists can now receive social benefits.

And now, Shariah Law is being embraced by Wall Street as a savior to its liquidity woes. Poor disclosure, weak transparency, donating profits to Islamic charities: Shariah Finance is sure to be the next sub-prime market disaster, but with a terror financing twist and threat to our very existence.

We can accept Shariah law or we can resist it, but we can't sit this out.

This Shariah Law Risk Due Diligence Newsletter provides free weekly summaries of important news on Shariah Law and Shariah-Compliant Finance.

Take a stand. Please read this newsletter and pass it on to your friends. Please GO HERE to sign up to receive the free Sharia Law Risk Due Diligence Newsletter.


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

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


National Security and Financial Risks: Islamists are attempting to impose Shariah Compliant Finance (SCF) on Western institutions to use our own financial strengths against us. The most serious problem with SCF is that it legitimates and institutionalizes Shariah law (i.e., Islamic law), a theo-political-legal doctrine violently opposed to Western values. With $1-$2 trillion petrodollars annually looking for an investment home, blind exuberance is driving financial institutions to adopt SCF, without even a minimal baseline for legal compliance. This willful blindness, and lack of both transparency and due diligence may cause SCF to be the next sub-prime crisis, but this time with deadly consequences.

Legal Risks: Western financial institutions which adopt SCF may have criminal and civil exposure to claims of aiding and abetting sedition and the material support of terrorism, securities fraud, consumer fraud, racketeering, and antitrust violations, as well as exposure to tort claims for sedition and terrorism, and for the violation of internationally recognized norms of the law of nations.

Terror Financing Mechanism: SCF as monitored by paid Shariah law advisors to U.S. banking institutions must "purify" certain return on investment (ROI) dollars that do not meet Shariah law standards. This money must be donated to Islamic charities –– including some that promote Jihad and support suicide bombing. Investment disclosures state that these profits can be as high as 6% of profits of investments. With $800 billion already in SCF assets, the potential for billions of dollars to be siphoned off for terrorism is real. This would be a serious criminal violation of U.S. law.

Consider this example: Shariah Mutual Funds promote themselves as "ethical funds." To be Shariah-compliant, they donate "tainted" revenues to Shariah-compliant "charities." A post 9-11 U.S. investor in a Shariah-compliant "ethical investment" is not told that Shariah law also requires imposing Shariah as U.S. law, execution of gays and female apartheid. Is he a victim of consumer fraud? Is this same post 9-11 investor unwittingly funding terror? The government has shut down the three largest Shariah-compliant charities in the U.S. –– the Holy Land Foundation, Benevolence International Foundation, and the Global Relief Foundation –– after proving they funded terrorist organizations.

The American taxpayer deserves answers to these questions. The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is meeting directly with members of Congress, U.S. regulatory agencies and Wall Street financial institutions in order to ensure the enforcement of existing U.S. laws on sedition, disclosure, material support of terrorism, and money-laundering. CSP is committed to revealing the civil liability and criminal exposure of Shariah law and Shariah-compliant finance.

These Frequently Asked Questions about SCF are updated monthly by the research team at the Shariah Risk Due Diligence Program. FAQ sources, detailed research papers and legal briefs are available on request.

Contact Hope Winters at shariah@centerforsecuritypolicy.org t

To Go To Top

Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, March 24, 2008.

This was written by Anne Lieberman and posted on her website:

You never expected to see those words here, did you? Well I didn't either. I voted for George Bush and I thought he was the "best friend Israel ever had in the White House." I still think he is basically a decent man and I appreciate his efforts in the WVT –– war on various terrorists (not including the Palestinian ones).

But today the Bush administration went too far in the wrong direction and I must oppose it somehow, with all my being. In his speech today, President Bush said, "Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer paying the families of suicide bombers in the Holy Land."

Thank Gd and President Bush, he's right: Saddam is no longer paying the families of Palestinian Jew-murderers for killing Jews. But the United States IS.

Thirteen days ago, Palestinians viciously slaughtered eight of our innocent sons inside the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva in the heart of what Bush calls "The Holy Land." And today President Bush is writing the Palestinians a check for $150 million dollars.

Is this not terribly clear?

Add in the fact that, when asked if they supported the murders of the yeshiva boys in particular, 84 %of Palestinians said yes. It's in the New York Times today.

So let's get this completely straight. When Palestinians killed Jews, Saddam would pay their families as much as $25,000. We considered this to be evil and America opposed it... militarily.

And Now?

Less than two weeks ago, the Palestinians killed eight Jews –– with the support of 84% of their populace –– and today George Bush and Condi Rice and our Congress are giving them a gift?

150 million of our tax dollars?

What is that, almost $20 million per dead Jewish boy?

Or is it $250,000 per round of ammunition used?

Western-backed Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said it was "the largest sum of assistance of any kind to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority by any donor in one trench since the Palestinian Authority's inception."

Fayyad, who signed the agreement with U.S. Consul General Jake Walles, told reporters the U.S. contribution "was coming to us at a time of great need and it will help our efforts..."

Walles said the United States had pledged $550 million at a donors' conference in Paris in December last year that would be allocated for budgetary support, development projects and humanitarian assistance. "We're going to continue to implement the other aspects of our pledge," Walles said.

They're going to "continue to implement" this travesty?

With 550 MILLION of our tax dollars? Oh no they're not.

Jake Walles and Condi Rice and Salam Fayyad and Abu Mazen can call it whatever they like; Saddam probably thought he was in the business of "humanitarian assistance" too. But if it goes to the Palestinians while they're killing Jews in Israel, to me it's blood money, pure and simple.

There is no question: I'd sooner let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid divvy up the money for earmarks in America any day, than bear responsibility for further enabling the Palestinians to kill and maim our families and our children. With impunity. With American money, our money. I cannot imagine anything more horrific.

If anyone can tell me how the U.S. is different from Saddam Hussein in this instance, speak now, because I'm ready to join with the opposition, the liberals who want to impeach Bush for their own reasons, in a desperate bid to bring attention to my own outrage, alarm and despair.

I have cried, I have blogged, I have emailed and I have faxed... and nothing changes. Completely contrary to the majority's pro-Israel sentiment in this country, our federal government is barreling ahead, pouring money into Jew killers and trying to award them with a sovereign state. For WHAT?

The buck stops here, boys and girls. What're you going to do about it? What CAN we do about it?

Stop Bush and Rice
Save Israel

President George W. Bush
Fax number: (202) 456-2461
Comment line: (202) 456-1111

Condoleezza Rice
Fax number: (202) 647-2283
Comment line: (202) 647-6575

Doris Wise Montrose is a member of the Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, Los Angeles. Contact her at doris@cjhsla.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 24, 2008.

Well, here we are in the midst of an ever-changing scenario that has yet to play itself out.

Officially, neither the US nor Israel has comment on the agreement signed by Fatah and Hamas yesterday in Yemen that commits them to working out their differences. I determined as much via calls to the US Embassy and US Consulate in Jerusalem, and to spokespersons for the prime minister and ministry of foreign affairs.

But unofficially, it's another story. Most nauseating (and I use the word advisedly) was the reaction of Defense Minister Barak, as reported by Abu Toameh and others in the Post. Barak is said to be considering some "good will gestures" to show the PA that if they get too close to Hamas they risk "losing everything."

What the Post article said was that:

"[Israeli government] officials, who were skeptical that a declaration agreed upon in Yemen by Fatah and Hamas would actually bear any fruit, said that by agreeing to re-start a dialogue with Hamas, PA President Mahmoud Abbas might be signaling to Israel that if it didn't start acting to shore up his position, he had 'other options.'"

If we didn't "start acting to shore up his position"??? Does this mean we are expected to cave on matters that impinge on Israeli security, in order to make Abbas look good, out of fear of what he might do if we fail to respond?

There is a word for what Barak is contemplating: appeasement. The more the PA officials act perversely, the more we think we must provide for them. In such a scenario, the PA is calling the shots and we make ourselves fools. There is no notion of requiring demonstrable good faith of the PA before restrictions are relaxed.

All of this, you understand, is being done with an eye towards Rice's arrival here next week. For it's not only the PA that our government rushes to appease, but also (and perhaps even more so) the US government.

Barak is considering such things as a VIP lane at checkpoints and exempting businessmen who have received security clearances from getting checked at these points. A risky business in my opinion. Suffice it to say that there have been several occasions on which persons who have been deemed trustworthy turned out to be accomplices to terror activity.

In fairness to Barak, he did say it's too soon to consider actually taking down checkpoints.


Olmert for his part, is reported to have told Cheney that "the understandings between Hamas and Fatah are not the kind that requires any Israeli response." We will continue to negotiate with the PA, he said, but implementation of any agreement will depend on its ability to fight terror. Also perhaps words designed to satisfy the Americans.


With all of this, at a different level, the message has also been passed to Abbas that if he returns to a unity government, negotiations are over.

An Israeli official, speaking without authorization and thus anonymously, said, "The Fatah leadership has to make a choice. They can have a peace process and dialogue with Israel or a coalition with Hamas. But it's clear that you can't have them both."

Unofficial messages from the US have been similar.


And will there be a new Palestinian unity government?

Well.. according to PA chief negotiator Ahmed Qurei, the agreement was signed as the result of a mix-up. He says that Azzam al-Ahmed, who headed the PA negotiating team in Yemen tried to call Abbas to get a final OK before signing, but Abbas was busy meeting with Cheney, so he went ahead and signed. A foolish and simplistic interpretation that perhaps signals a deeper disagreement or quandry.

Al Jazeera reports that some Abbas advisors are claiming that al-Ahmed kept Abbas in the dark regarding the details of what he signed, but al-Ahmed insists that he didn't exceed his brief and had coordinated with Abbas's office before signing.

So what is this about? We might say that Abbas is getting cold feet. But I would suggest another interpretation: that he's playing both ends against the middle, preparing to get into bed with Hamas while he acts as if this is not his intention at all.


There is considerable indication that this agreement, while it is based on specific items, simply commits the parties to further talk.

According to a PA statement, "Resumption of dialogue in the future must be to implement the Yemeni initiative in all its items and not to deal with the initiative as a framework for dialogue, because this will not yield an outcome." "The initiative in all its items" includes return to the situation in Gaza before the Hamas takeover.

But then, the PA is not ready to change its situation in Judea and Samaria.

While Hamas's position is that the agreement simply represents a guideline for talks, not pre-conditions at all.


Let me here recommend a new piece by Barry Rubin, "Palestinian Politics: Onward and Downward." It provides a solid dose of much-needed realism. Says Rubin, Palestinian politics continues to reject moderation. (Emphasis added below)

"Three factors fuel this trend.
"First, Fatah and the PA continue to be corrupt, incompetent and incapable of self-reform.

"Second, given the cult of violence and total victory dominating Palestinian political culture, Hamas is inevitably seen as heroic because it fights and rejects compromise...

"Compromise is treason; moderation is cowardice. This is the daily fare of Palestinian ideology and politics, purveyed by leaders, clerics, media and schools...

"Third, due to its own weakness and the strong political culture it never challenges, the current leadership cannot make peace. It knows, contrary to Western claims, that negotiating a political solution would destroy it, and acts accordingly...

"Even so, Fatah is undergoing a radicalization process which may not displace Abbas, but will install his successor. Public opinion is also more extreme, with support for terrorism zooming upward. Fatah both heeds and feeds the trend...

"We are now seeing the birth of a new Fatah all right, but not the one heralded by such people as former British prime minister Tony Blair or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It is rather an even more extremist version, coming from those who wield guns, not pens, namely the Aksa Brigades. Contrary to much reportage, this is not an 'offshoot' but an essential part of Fatah...

"The Brigades demand Fayyad's firing and replacement by 'a new government that would not abandon the armed struggle.' Like others in the Fatah leadership, its strategy is not to fight but ally with Hamas. Despite Hamas's bloody expulsion of Fatah from Gaza, killing Israelis wipes out all sins in Palestinian politics...

"The main thing keeping Fayyad in office is not honesty or moderation, but the fact that removing him would kiss good-bye to almost $7 billion in Western aid...

"One reason why many Westerners misunderstand the conflict and countries adopt ridiculously irrelevant policies is ignorance of how extremism is attractive in its own right. After all, Westerners reason, if people are all alike and universally pragmatic, Palestinians must want to end the conflict and get an independent state through negotiation and compromise. Why go on suffering? No 'rational' person would act that way.

"Therefore, many in the West reach one of two conclusions:

"1. Palestinian leaders want to act rationally but cannot make peace and achieve a better life for their people because Israel will not let them. This is the anti-Israel stance.

"2. They are eager to do so, and if Europe and America only put in lots of effort and money peace can be quickly achieved. This is the 'evenhanded' position, which always ends up demanding Israeli concessions in hopes of enabling Palestinian moderation.

"These are articles of unshakable faith, impermeable to evidence or experience. Whenever Palestinian leaders reject peace it must be because they were not offered enough... "
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420760146&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gadi Eshel, March 24, 2008.

Click here for an amazing virtual aerial excursion over Jerusalem. It is a Foundations of Israel Research Project (alisrael@aquanet.co.il). The Foundations of Israel website also includes a movie, a photos show, Jerusalem sights and a virtual map.

Contact Dr. Gadi Eshel at gadi.eshel@ptk.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehudit Tayar, March 23, 2008.

In our collective Jewish memory the entrance of the month of Adar B gives a feeling of pride and joy in our history –– that the united front of the Jewish people against the evil decrees of Haman, and the willingness of Esther and Mordechai to sacrifice themselves for the future of the Jewish people is a lesson to learn and to adopt.

A few days ago I heard the "President of Israel" quoted as saying," I ask that the Board of Education cut down the amount of time dedicated to learning history. What does it matter how many soldiers Napoleon lost? Today all one has to do is open a computer to find out information." Hearing this statement clarified a lot of questions I ask myself one of which is : how can Peres continue to talk about a "New Middle East" despite the reality of the situation since the implementation of the Oslo Accords.

If one is disconnected from the lessons of history –– albeit recent history –– and refuses to consider the realities of the situation relying on technology or theory then it is perhaps understandable that one can continue blindly and irresponsibly to promote something that is an illusion. Mr. Peres and his gang are purposefully ignoring the results of their efforts: the bloodshed of innocents, the missiles on Israel, the continuous rhetoric of their so-called partners in this madness who are clinging to the desire to destroy Israel and remove the Jewish people from this region.

If one is not willing to make the minimum effort to study history, to try and learn from it and not make the same fatal mistakes then it is convenient to continue to fool oneself and convince others that this "New Middle East" is possible.

We, the Jewish people, know that in order to survive we must put effort into the study of our history and history in general. We, the Jewish people, must implement the lessons of the history that we learn and live in the reality of the situation as it actually is and not as Mr. Peres and his groopies live in an age of dependence on technology and theory.

The entrance of Adar B with the murderous terror attack on innocent students as they studied Torah was a painful, heartbreaking wakeup call to the realities of the situation as it is, and a reminder of the lessons of history –– be true to your G-d and to your people and do not trust wealth, power or computers to do the work for you.

May we rejoice in our history and together work and study to make the future safe and better for the Jewish people in our Land and for the world. Yehudit Tayar is a veteran spokesperson for the Settlement Movement and lives for the past 28 years with her husband Ami and their family in the Shomron. Contact her at tayarf@bezeqint.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, March 24, 2008.

This 60th Anniversary issue of the Jewish Policy Center publication InFocus Quarterly includes an excellent group of essays and articles:

Israel's Achievements Over 60 Years (Richard Baehr)

Israel's Media Wars (Cliff May and Joshua Goodman)

The 60-Year War For Israel's History (Efraim Karsh)

An Interview with Israel's Ambassador, Sallai Meridor

Debunking Demographic Myths (Bennett Zimmerman and Michael Wise)

The Forgotten Jewish Refugees From Arab States (Robert Ivker)

The Threat From Israel's Arab Population (Barak M. Seener)

Is Anti-Israelism also Anti-Semitism? (Kenneth L. Marcus)

Christian Zionism and the U.S.-Israel Relationship (Jonathan Calt Harris)

The Battle to Define 'Pro-Israel' (Noah Silverman)

U.S. Charity to Israel Reconsidered (Daniel Doron)

The essay below is written by Efraim Karsh and is called The 60-Year War For Israel's History and is archived at http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/article/109 Efraim Karsh is professor and head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London and author, most recently, of Islamic Imperialism: A History.

Since Israel's founding in 1948, there have been two Arab-Israeli conflicts. The first one is military in nature. Played out on the battlefield, it has heroes, villains, martyrs, and victims. The second conflict, less bloody but no less incendiary, is the battle over the historical culpability for the 1948 war and the displacement of large numbers of Palestinian Arabs.

The Israeli narrative views the Palestinian tragedy as primarily self-inflicted, resulting from their vehement rejection of the 1947 United Nations resolution calling for two states in Palestine, and the violent attempt by regional Arab states to abort the Jewish state at birth. By contrast, Palestinians view the episode as one in which they fell victim to a Zionist strategy that dispossessed them from their patrimony.

The New Historians

In the late 1980s the Palestinian narrative was bolstered by the advent of a group of Israeli "new historians" who systematically rewrote the history of Zionism, warping the saga for Israel's survival. Aggressors were characterized as hapless victims and victims became aggressors. Rarely found in these revisionist accounts was the outspoken Arab commitment to destroy the Jewish national cause since the early 1920s, or the dogged efforts of the Jews to achieve peaceful coexistence. Instead, Zionism is depicted as an aggressive and expansionist movement, or an offshoot of rapacious European imperialism. According to Avi Shlaim, a noted new historian, Israel was an "aggressive and overbearing military superpower," while Palestinian Arabs could "only be seen as victims."

Aware that many of their key arguments and revelations were already negated by the existing work of "Israeli writers, not to mention Palestinian, Arab, and Western writers," as Shlaim noted, new historians staked their legitimacy on their supposed use of recently declassified documents from the archives of the British Mandate period and Israel's early days. This pretense, however, was debunked inter alia by a startling admission by Benny Morris of Ben-Gurion University in Beer Sheva.

In researching The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-1949, the most influential work of the new historians, Morris had "no access to the materials in the IDFA [Israel Defense Force Archive] or Hagana Archive and precious little to first-hand military materials deposited elsewhere." Nevertheless, he insisted, "the new materials I have seen over the past few years tend to confirm and reinforce the major lines of description and analysis, and the conclusions, in The Birth."

This revelation was very damning. What made Morris and his colleagues worth reading was their claim to have studied newly available documentary evidence. It was this evidence, the new historians argued, that necessitated a reevaluation of Israeli history. Yet there was Morris, admitting that he had not "had access" to, or "was not aware of," the voluminous archives of Israeli institutions whose actions in 1948 formed the basis of his indictment.

Morris and other new historians also failed to confirm and reinforce their conclusions with previously available sources. What they did confirm was what was already known: the collapse and dispersion of Palestinian society was largely the responsibility of Palestinian and other Arab leaders, not of the Zionists.

Morris' Distortion

Upon close examination, it appears that Morris and other new historians engaged in systematic falsification of evidence. They seem to have invented an Arab-Israeli history that fits with the political agenda they promote. Tactics range from the "innocent" act of extrapolating incorrect conclusions from documents, to tendentious truncation of source materials in ways that distort their original meanings, and even rewriting original texts to convey things they did not intend. Two brief examples are worth noting.

In a letter to his son in 1937, David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, wrote:

We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption –– proven throughout all our activity –– that there is enough room for ourselves and the Arabs in Palestine.

In The Birth, however, Morris claims Ben-Gurion penned the opposite: "We must expel Arabs and take their place." Curiously, in his Hebrew-language writings, Morris rendered Ben-Gurion's words accurately, perhaps knowing that readers could check the original source.

In a separate article, Morris distorted Ben-Gurion's words from an Israeli cabinet meeting on June 16, 1948:

We did not start the war. They made the war, Jaffa went to war against us. So did Haifa. And I do not want those who fled to return. I do not want them again to make war.

The key sentence, "I do not want those who fled to return," is simply not found in the text of the meeting transcript. Rather, it reads as follows:

We did not start the war. They made the war. Jaffa waged war on us, Haifa waged war on us, Beit Shean waged war on us. And I do not want them again to make war.

Again, in the Hebrew version of his article, Morris did not distort Ben-Gurion's words.

At What Risk?

The discipline of history, the rigorous search for the truths of our past, typically eschews the blatant distortion of facts. Yet, in the highly politicized field of Middle Eastern studies, the new historians are lionized as pioneers. They are viewed by their colleagues and understudies as courageous for debunking Zionist "mythology" at a considerable professional risk.

The new historians have not faced the slightest risk to their careers, however. The humanities and social sciences faculties in most American, European, and even Israeli universities are dominated by like-minded academics. Indeed, the new historians have become celebrated figures and have cashed in on their prestige. They receive book deals and travel opportunities to share their "findings" around the world. As Tom Segev, a journalist and new historian joked, "we perform at weddings and bar mitzvas." Even a minor figure like Haifa University student Teddy Katz, who published phony allegations of a 1948 Israeli massacre of hundreds of Palestinians in the village of Tantura, was taken on a U.S. campus tour to promote his fabrications.

Pals of the Palestinians

Not surprisingly, the Palestinian propaganda machine has embraced the new historians with alacrity. Who could possibly provide better "proof" of the validity of the Palestinian narrative than Israeli scholars who claim access to declassified Israeli documents?

Prominent politicians, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and PLO mouthpiece Hanan Ashrawi, and Palestinian academics, including the late Edward Said and Columbia University's Rashid Khalidi, have regularly cited the new historians in support of Palestinian territorial and political claims. The partisan Journal of Palestine Studies has made new historians their favorite contributors. Palestinian propaganda websites contain countless "facts" drawn from their writings. Palestinian negotiators in the failed Camp David (July 2000) and Taba (January 2001) peace summits reportedly invoked the work of new historians, notably Morris' Birth, in attempts to establish Israel's culpability for the 1948 naqba (catastrophe).

Impacting Israel

The new historians also had a profound impact on mainstream Israeli opinion during the Oslo years. Fatigued by decades of terrorism, yearning for normalcy, and desperate for reconciliation with the Arabs, many educated Israelis warmed to the factually incorrect notion that much of the fault for the conflict lay with their own country. If reconciliation with the Arabs could not be achieved through military deterrence, they reasoned, might not a new start be made by accommodating Arab demands, acknowledging Israeli culpability for Arab suffering, and agreeing to political and territorial concessions stemming from the "original sin" of the Jewish state?

This mindset helps explain, in part, the headlong embrace by so many educated Israelis of the Oslo process, and their insistence that it would solve the problem of Arab intransigence. For them, Palestinian violence and vitriol made it more necessary than ever to embrace the idea of Jewish culpability. Convinced that Arab grievances were rooted in Israeli aggression, many Israelis believed that violence could only be overcome by appeasement and concessions.

Throughout the 1990s, the new historians' interpretation of the conflict became increasingly embedded in Israeli thinking, the mainstream Israeli media, and even Israeli educational curriculum. "Only 10 years ago, much of this was taboo," the Israeli author of a new ninth-grade textbook boasted to the New York Times. "Now we can deal with this the way Americans deal with the Indians and black enslavement."

Embracing 'New History' Under Fire

Even the Palestinian war of terror in September 2000 (also known as the al-Aqsa intifada) failed to awaken many Israelis to the dangers of the new historians. Indeed, Israel continued to negotiate for peace, even as Yasir Arafat made it clear that he had launched a war to "liberate" Jerusalem.

One Israeli negotiator, Shlomo Ben-Ami, lauded the contribution of new historians to the political process. "The negotiations," he said, "were a struggle of narratives, and the new historians definitely helped in consolidating the Palestinians' conviction as to the validity of their own narrative... the Israeli peacemakers came to the negotiating table with perspectives that were shaped by recent research." So impressed was Ben-Ami with this "recent research" that he vested Avi Shlaim, the new historian from Oxford University, with the task of reading the manuscript of his 2006 book on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Song Remains the Same

Years after the demise of the Oslo peace process, the deleterious effects of new history can still be observed. The intensely anti-Israel and anti-Jewish atmosphere that emerged in the years after the launch of the intifada has not waned. The despicable equation of Zionism and Nazism has become commonplace, alongside outlandish conspiracy theories regarding Jewish and Israeli domination of world affairs. There has even been a surge in attacks on Jewish targets throughout Europe at a level not seen since the 1930s.

Here, too, the new historians have played a role. Take, for example, the working-paper-turned-book by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer on the supposed hijacking of U.S. foreign policy by a ruthless Jewish cabal beholden to Israel. Walt and Mearsheimer cite the new history in an attempt to prove Israel's alleged mistreatment of the Palestinians. Indeed, the two international relations theorists cited so much from the new historians that their book drew an angry riposte from Morris for allegedly misquoting him and taking his writings out of context.

Did Morris have a minor pricking of conscience over the untold damage he had wrought on Israel and the discipline of history? In addition to lambasting Walt and Mearsheimer, he was critical of Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority's campaign of terrorism after the failure of the Taba talks. But even as he strove to redress some of the damage he had wrought, Morris brought out a new version of The Birth, which rehashed some of his worst anti-Israel canards and re-writings of history.

Other new historians, including Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe, have seemingly had no misgivings. Pappe falsely claimed to have been persecuted by his university, providing the pretext for the 2005 boycott of Haifa University by Britain's 48,000-strong Association of University Teachers (AUT). In countless tours and media appearances in Europe and North America, Pappe derides the Jewish state as a racist, artificial, colonialist implant in the Middle East, and as worthy of extirpation as the former apartheid regime of South Africa. He is joined by Shlaim, who, in recent years, has become a proponent of the "one state solution" –– a euphemism for replacing Israel with an Arab-Muslim state and reducing Jews to a permanent minority.

Despite his overt advocacy of politicide, along with malevolent falsifications of Israeli history, Shlaim was recently invited to lecture at Tel Aviv University's Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies. This invitation affords a stark illustration of the intellectual malaise afflicting Israeli academia, and the Israeli public more generally, to which the new historians have made a significant and corrosive contribution.

Jonathan Schanzer is Director of Policy, Jewish Policy Center and Editor, inFocus Quarterly.

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Zwick, March 24, 2008.

Reprinted for Passover 5768

Father in Heaven, I would like to ask you four questions. Why is this war different from all other wars?

  1. Most other wars are resolved within several years, but this war is raging on for 60 years?

  2. Most other refugees are resettled within several years, but the Palestinian Arabs have been refugees for 60 years?

  3. All other ethnic groups are permitted to live in their historic and holy areas, but Jews are told that they are not allowed to live in "occupied Palestinian territory" even though it is occupied by Jews?

  4. All other countries are expected to vigorously defend their citizens from foreign attacks, but the State of Israel is told that it "must show restraint" and stop "oppressing" its enemies?

We may never know the answers to complex Heavenly questions, but we can surmise the answers to the more earthy ones. The underlying question is: In the last 20 years, there have been numerous peace conferences, agreements, proposals, and accords to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. Why have they all failed to produce a resolution to the conflict? The answer to this question is similar to the answer to the famous questions in the Passover Haggadah. The Haggadah recalls the suffering and oppression of the Jewish people when they were slaves to the Pharoah of Egypt. Today, the suffering of the Jews and Arabs involved in the conflict results from being enslaved by the self-serving interests of political leaders, and by the Law of Effect.

Every student who studies Psychology 101 learns about Thorndike's Law of Effect. In essence, this law states that behavior that is followed by favorable consequences is likely to be repeated, and behavior followed by unfavorable consequences is less likely to be repeated. The Arab-Israeli conflict has caused considerable death, destruction, and suffering over the last 60 years. Then according to the Law of Effect, it would seem that the principals involved in the conflict would be eager to find a solution to end the conflict and reduce the suffering. Yet, the conflict rages on. That suggests that some benefit is being derived from the continuation of the conflict.

What benefit could possibly be derived from death, destruction, misery, and suffering? Could the Arab leaders be obtaining any benefit from continuing the conflict? Natan Sharansky answers that question in his insightful book, The Case for Democracy. Sharansky and co-author Ron Dermer make the following observations:

One does not have to be an expert in political science to understand that what is good for dictators is rarely what is good for their subjects...To these dictators, what is important is not improving the lives of their subjects, but controlling them...That is why nondemocratic rulers find the threat of war a particularly attractive device for justifying the repression that is necessary to control their subjects and remain in power. By tapping into the strong national, religious, ethnic, or other sentiments that an "enemy" arouses, regimes in fear societies rally their people to their side and divert attention away from their subjects' miserable living conditions and the regime's failure to improve them.

From this we can see that the despotic leaders of the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran are actually benefiting from the conflict by using Israel as a perpetual enemy. It helps to keep them in power and control.

What about the United Nations? That organization was established to promote peace. What benefit could the UN derive from prolonging the conflict? The answer to that comes from the official UNRWA website:

UNRWA employs some 24,324 staff, of whom more than 99 per cent are locally-recruited Palestinians, almost all of them Palestine refugees. The United Nations covers the costs of 98 international staff posts, and the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) second senior staff to the Agency. The Agency is by far the largest United Nations operation in the Middle East besides being one of the biggest employers in the region. UNRWA services are labour intensive and the majority of staff are directly involved in providing services to refugees, for example, as doctors, teachers, social workers or sanitation labourers. Staff costs account for two-thirds of the Agency's regular budget...UNRWA's General Assembly-approved cash budget for 2006 is US$ 470.9 million. This funds the Agency's ongoing Education, Health and Relief and Social Services activities. As of October 2006, contributions pledged to this cash budget by UN and donors total US$ 335.5 million. An additional US$ 150.4 million has been budgeted for projects and US$17.6 million for in-kind donations.

Unlike the UNHCR, UNRWA was established for only one purpose: to care for the Palestinian "refugees." UNHCR will always have a steady flow of refugees from the various world conflicts and natural disasters. However, once the issue of Palestinian "refugees" is resolved, then UNRWA loses its raison d'etre. Its leaders and policymakers have no incentive to disband the organization and lose their generous incomes and perks.

What about the United States? Surely, the benevolent United States has no self-interest in prolonging the conflict! Wouldn't the USA be eager to find peaceful resolutions to conflict? Part of the answetr to that question comes from the book, The Secret War Against the Jews, by John Loftus and Mark Aarons. In a review of the book by The Israel Hasbara Committee, Anthony David Marks writes:

The book may read like a fictional spy novel but fortunately or unfortunately, depending on which side you are on, it is too well documented to be a figment of someone's imagination. It is the real thing. Encompassing a total of 658 pages divided into 21 chapters with 1,884 footnotes, it is a formidable work on the abysmal failures of Western intelligence agencies over the last 50 years or so. The case against these agencies is very strong, very persuasive. In fact, the book's title may be somewhat of a misnomer. It certainly shows how the Jews have been consistently exploited when American and British intelligence services urgently needed them, but at the same time discarded and thrown to the wind when the need expired. They were always expendable. However, of equal weight is the cynicism of these intelligence agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in letting themselves be used by the rich and powerful to further their own selfish ends –– all at taxpayers' expense. True, not everyone in these agencies is to blame as there are 'organizations' within the organization, or circles within circles. There are many very fine people working in the intelligence services who have loyally served their country's vital interests.

In another review of the book, on its official site, Deane Rink summarizes:

While the focus of this book is the secret war against the Jews, it raises larger questions about how clandestine intelligence operations have distorted our appreciation of history and made it nearly impossible for the average citizen to follow rationally his country's foreign policy initiatives. For this reviewer, it has placed the events of 9/11, the war on Afghanistan and the impending war on Iraq, in a larger, more disturbing perspective and suggests rather sad answers to seemingly logical questions like: "Why didn't America retaliate against Saudi Arabia (15 of the 19 suicide hijackers in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis) after 9/11?" and "What kind of secret game is George W. Bush and his advisors playing with their post-9/11 saber-rattling?"

Some of the answers to these questions may come from the large conglomerate known as Halliburton. In an article in the Washington Post on March 13, 2007, Steven Mufson and Dana Hedgpeth write about Halliburtons move to Dubai:

But over the weekend, the company now known as Halliburton announced that its chief executive, Dave Lesar, would move to a new corporate headquarters in Dubai to focus on business in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Asia.

The announcement sparked warnings from members of Congress, who suspected that the company once run by Vice President Cheney was trying to trim its tax bill and remove itself from the limelight here, where it has come under fire about the way it obtained and executed government contracts, especially those connected to troubled reconstruction projects in Iraq.

"The CEO of Halliburton has decided to leave this country to move his offices to Dubai because he says it is 'a great business center.' That is a bizarre announcement," said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), who is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee.

In an article in MoneyNews.com on May 22, 2007, Halliburton CEO David Lesar discussed the Middle East operations:

Halliburton Co., the Houston, Texas-based oil services company, is shifting the company's focus and capital investments away from North America and toward the oil and gas-rich Middle East, its chief executive Dave Lesar said here Tuesday.

Lesar, starting his first week running the company from his new headquarters in Dubai, said Halliburton would quickly expand its Mideast operations as it targets $80 billion in new business over the next five years –– 75 percent of which lies in the eastern hemisphere, mainly the Middle East.

"Halliburton is committed to this part of the world," Lesar told a group of Dubai-based reporters.

The company seeks Arab investors and a share listing on Dubai's new international stock exchange, Lesar said. Halliburton has already hired 4,800 of the 14,000 new workers it plans to bring aboard this year, many of them in the Arab world, he said.

"We're looking for as many young Arab and Asian engineers, technicians and professionals to come and join our organization," Lesar said while swigging a Coke in a swanky hotel meeting room.

"As we build up our headquarters offices here it's not going to be by transferring people from the U.S., it's going to be by hiring locals," he said. "Unlike the States, there are more people in this part of the world who are interested in careers in the oil and gas industry."

While most people have heard of Halliburton, fewer are familiar with the more secretive Carlyle Group. According to its official website:

The Carlyle Group is a global private equity firm with $58.5 billion under management. Carlyle invests in buyouts, venture & growth capital, real estate and leveraged finance in Asia, Europe and North America, focusing on aerospace & defense, automotive & transportation, consumer & retail, energy & power, healthcare, industrial, technology & business services and telecommunications & media. Since 1987, the firm has invested $28.3 billion of equity in 636 transactions for a total purchase price of $132.0 billion. The Carlyle Group employs nearly 800 people in 18 countries. In the aggregate, Carlyle portfolio companies have more than $87 billion in revenue and employ more than 286,000 people around the world.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2007, AME Info reported that:

Global private equity firm The Carlyle Group announced that Hassan El-Khatib will join the new Middle East and North Africa (MENA) team as a Managing Director advising on investments in Egypt and Northern Africa...

Mr. El-Khatib said, 'Helping Carlyle establish a new investment operation is a great opportunity. Carlyle's arrival here is recognition of the healthy growth of local and foreign investment in Egypt and the promise that the MENA region holds. Numerous companies here can benefit from Carlyle's pool of capital, global network, management expertise and emphasis on operational excellence.'

Carlyle's MENA team will invest primarily in healthy, growing companies. From offices in Cairo, Dubai and Istanbul, the team will leverage Carlyle's expertise in various sectors, including energy, financial services, healthcare, industrial, infrastructure, technology and transportation.

Mr. El-Khatib will advise on Carlyle's investment activities in Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Libya and Tunisia. Investments are expected to include: leveraged buyouts, growth capital, majority and minority stakes in private companies and stakes in public companies.

So it is readily apparent that many American business and political leaders are profiting very nicely from the strife and instability in the Middle East. But what about the Israeli leadership? Surely their highest priority must be to bring peace, security, and stability to the State of Israel. This issue was addressed by Gregory Levey in an article in Salon.com on February 15, 2007.

The senior Israeli diplomat's grievances went beyond the Defense Ministry. He lamented the wave of cronyism, corruption and sexual harassment scandals that have plagued the government in recent times. "We live in a corrupt society, where those with merit don't get anywhere," he said. "It's a very sad time for the Jewish state."

I raised this striking level of gloom with another high-ranking diplomat, who told me he was not surprised to hear of it. "There is a lot of frustration right now," he nodded, "and it's not just felt in the Foreign Ministry." He agreed that it was caused by "all the corruption in the political layers, and the perception in Israel that the war was a failure."

Yet, the roots of the seemingly ubiquitous sense of despair may stem more from the goings-on in the corridors of power in Washington than those in Jerusalem.

In December, Daniel Levy, who served as a special advisor to former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and is now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, told me that the Bush administration's Middle East policies are "just so out of sync with what are good politics for the U.S. and Israel." Those policies, he said, "have led Israel into the most dangerous situation anyone remembers it being in." Levy also pointed out that despite the American president's avowed staunch support for Israel, "Bush has never stepped foot in Israel or the Palestinian territories."...

The grim status quo seems to have left many at the top levels of the Israeli government turning their fears and anger inward. They have remained largely preoccupied with political infighting and back stabbing, and with the various allegations of criminal wrongdoing being leveled against many of them, instead of focusing on moving the country forward during deeply challenging times...

In poll results released on Feb. 8, 78 percent of Israelis said they were "unhappy" with their leaders, citing corruption, inexperience and self-centeredness as their main reasons. And 68 percent of them said that their current leaders were worse than those of the past.

So it is well known that the main motivating factors for political leaders and policymakers has always been power, money, and fame, not altruism. So as long as they realize benefits from a prolonged conflict, the conflict will continue without resolution.

Last but definitely, not least, there is one more important factor which interferes with the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that is religion. Religious fanatics are unwilling to make reasonable compromises because they consider them immoral compromises. As Mike Martin explains in his book, Everyday Morality:

Reasonable compromisers have good judgment. By contrast, fanatics lack good judgement. They suffer from "tunnel vision," seeing one moral imperative as having unlimited importance while remaining insensitive to the claims of other equally valid moral principles. As a result, their one commitment reveals excess: It is pursued with misguided and intolerant zeal.

So given all of these factors that are interfering with resolution of the conflict, what can the people who are actually suffering from the conflict do to change the situation? They can take a clue from the Passover Haggadah.

They need to cry out to their leaders and say, "We have had enough of this suffering and oppression. We want an end to the conflict." Since the leadership has no incentive to end the conflict, then the people have to rise up and say, "Let my people go."

Contact Israel Zwick by email at israel.zwick@earthlink.net. He is editor of www.cnpublications.net. This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 24, 2008.


The IDF raided Bethlehem, which the journalist called a Muslim-Christian city, striking at terrorists. It killed four, including a leader of a leader of Islamic Jihad. The journalist called him a "victim." "For the thousands who attended their funerals they were local heroes of the Palestinian resistance who had managed to survive this long."

The city was described as the "calmest and most committed city," where an international investors' conference was planned. She reports that the attack "enraged Fatah advocates of negotiations with Israel. They accused Israel of aiming "to blow up the peace process." The raid was inconvenient for Abbas, trying to arrange a truce between Hamas and Israel. He issued a statement, "These barbaric crimes reveal the true face of Israel, which speaks loudly about peace and security all the while committing murders and executions against our people." Reporter Isabel Kershner's article was paired with Secretary-Gen. Ban's condemnation of Israel as using disproportionate and excessive use of force.

An Israeli official explained that the four casualties were dangerous fugitives, long-time terrorists (NY Times, A8).

As usual, the Times gave about four times the space to the Arab side and its emotion-stirring propaganda as it did to the Israeli side and its factual statements. The Arabs made claims that were left unchallenged. That is not fair.

The Times called Bethlehem a Muslim-Christian city. Not, it is a Muslim city with only a relatively few Christians still left and the rest packing, after most fled from the beatings, shakedowns, and confiscation of their property by Muslim thugs protected by the P.A.. How "calm," then, is Bethlehem?

If (many) thousands considered the terrorists heroes, the Rice, Bush, and Olmert are mistaken, at best, when they propose statehood for the P.A. on the assumption that the people are moderate. Why would liquidating those terrorists upset Fatah advocates of negotiations with Israel? What kind of a peace does Fatah have in mind. How earnest is Fatah in accusing Israel of wanting to stop peace negotiations, when PM Olmert is notorious for negotiating with enemies who use those negotiations to advance the step-by-step destruction of Israel? Same for Abbas, who accused Israeli eradication of terrorism, which is what Abbas is suppose to do, as "murders?" He almost always sides with the terrorists against Israel. You might say that he has to, to maintain his position. Fair enough, but then that means his people are thoroughly pro-terrorist. He never has told them that terrorism is wrong. He says only that at present it is not effective but that he may approve it soon.

Those who purport to be in a peace process are deluding themselves.


Britain has no constitutional separation of church and state. The Church of 0England is established. Its Archbishop of Canterbury suggested in a "nuanced, scholarly lecture" that if all parties agree and protect women's equal rights, let Islamic and Orthodox Jewish courts handle marriage and divorce.

Criticism was strong and immediate, but only because Shariah suffers from a bad press. Its mention conjures images of amputation, stoning, and female subjugation. People forget that until the 18th (or 19th) centuries, Western civilization had legal torture and women couldn't possess property. The US sentences some criminals, such as minor drug offenders, excessively. If Shariah were followed in all types of cases, however, there wouldn't be enough convictions. (Then there wouldn't be justice.)

Muhammad received divine revelation. Islamic jurists interpret his teaching, to guide the rulers. For most of its history, Islam offered the most humane legal principles anywhere. It still requires a high standard of proof for punishment, such as that adulterers must confess four times or their crime must have been witnessed by four adult males of good character. Imposition of Shariah would set a high philosophical standard, not just veiling women and corporal punishment.

Islamists generally win elections they are allowed to enter in Arab countries, partly because they advocate return to Shariah, which would restore rule of law and justice. The secular dictators in Muslim states do not follow Shariah. It is an oversimplified notion that Muslims would use Shariah to control women, large numbers of whom among the Muslims support the Islamists and the ideal of Shariah. On the other hand, Shariah treats women as inferior to men (Noah Feldman, NY Times Magazine, 3/16, p.46). Another self-contradiction by the author.

Did Mr. Feldman reveal a dhimmi mentality of appeasement of Islam, by stating more than once that Muhammad received divine revelation, without qualifying it by "according to Islam?"

Yes, Britain has somewhat established one sect, but allows the rest to practice freely. Islam doesn't. Mr. Feldman forgot about freedom of religion. He might reply that he was only proposing religious courts for marital issues, but he was praising Shariah in general.

Islamic law does impose amputation, stoning, and female subjugation, so let us not judge it only by its better qualities. How can Islamic courts handle marital issues and also protect women's equal rights, which contradict Shariah? Why deprive a Muslim woman of the right to civil marriage and divorce?

The broader issue, of course, is that Islam aims to take over the West in stages. Giving in on this would lead to agitation for the next stage, certainly for wider jurisdiction for Islamic courts as part of the sequestration of Muslims in the West, so they can be organized against society. Feldman ignores this consequence of his proposal.

Yes, the US has some unjust aspects of law. I say, reform them. As for Shariah having been the most humane anywhere, I wonder what Feldman would say about Jewish law or if he considered that under Shariah and under Muslim rule, there was mass slavery, mass murder, and mass discrimination. It's not just the reputation of Shariah that was ill.

Feldman has given a learned excuse for Shariah, the jist of which is that Muslims largely ignored it for centuries. He doesn't even call this an experiment that would have to be worked out. Neither does he deal with the real world, in which working something out with the Muslims may mean appeasing them to our own great disadvantage. Why should we take a chance on what they, in their ill will towards the West, and as they increasingly radicalize, would do now? Any good features it may have can be borrowed. Advocate that!

The US has reformed considerably. Its statutes are well advanced from what they were a century or two ago. How unfair to compare Shariah now, in its backward condition, with Western law as it once was! The alternatives are not Shariah versus 18th century US law.

Nor is the logic any better in calling Shariah "justice," simply because it requires high standards of proof and also finding that it would let too high a proportion of criminals evade consequences. That would not be justice.

Yes, many Muslim women seem to favor Shariah. Does that mean that those who don't, those who prefer Western freedoms, perhaps those who have emancipated themselves from their indoctrination, should have no choice? Do they really like the notion that the crime of adultery must be proved by four men? One of America's reforms was to decriminalize the sin of adultery. Now we are to return to it? Will we set up sex police to enforce such matters? Let us return to national unity, which means offering civil law on marital issues.

I think we should defend our culture and our freedom by barring Muslims or Islam, whose general thrust, whether Islamist or not, is to impose their ways upon us, backed by their death threats. Feldman encourages their efforts.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 23, 2008.

Gratitude first on a national level. We seem to have gotten through Purim without a major terror attack, which is no small thing. (Purim is was over Friday night every where but the walled cities of Jerusalem and Sefat, which celebrated Sushan Purim today.)

There was a time when Purim was a prime choice of terrorists for launching their evil plans upon us. And always during Purim the country is on high alert.

And then, I am grateful beyond words for the simcha (joy) I experienced this Purim with my kids and 10 grandchildren. Such moments of pure happiness are rare in life and must be savored and appreciated.


Vice President Cheney is here.

While I remain mindful of the fact that he does represent the Bush administration and Bush policy, the truth is that, knowing his background with regard to Israel, I trust him in a way I would never trust Rice.

Last night Cheney said: "America's commitment to Israel's security is enduring and unshakeable, as is our commitment to Israel's right to defend itself always against terrorism rocket attacks and other threats from forces dedicated to Israel's destruction...The US will never pressure Israel to take steps that threaten his security."

What I say about this is that I'm reasonably confident that if it were up to him, there would be no pressure on us that threatens our security. Haval (a pity) that it's not solely up to him.

Then...sigh... he did go on to talk about the "peace process." Yes, he said that peace "requires painful concessions." (That again –– it seems to be considered de rigeur. But he said it in Ramallah after meeting with Abbas.) And that, citing the president, a Palestinian state is "long overdue." But even so, he also went on record as saying that while "we continue to work for peace, we must not, and shall not, ignore the darkening of shadows of the situation in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria and in Iran, and the forces there that are working to derail the hopes of the world."

While he is dealing with the "peace process" during his brief visit, my impression is that the priority in Cheney's discussions with Israeli officials is Iran. He met with Olmert last night, this morning met with Peres –– who warned that if the Golan were returned to Syria it would end up in Iran's hands –– and Netanyahu –– who warned that withdrawal from any part of Jerusalem would make room for Iran to move in. Then on to Ramallah for meetings, and returning to meet one more time with Olmert.


This is a time when definitive reporting is difficult because so much is unresolved and rumors fly so fast. Let us look here at major issues on the table:

The Fatah-Hamas meetings in Yemen. Fatah wants Gaza returned to its control. Hamas wants Haniyeh restored to the position of prime minister of the PA (moving out Fayyad, who was appointed by Abbas in place of Haniyeh after the Hamas takeover in Gaza). From my perspective it seems that if they are interested in the status quo ante in one respect they have to accept the whole package –– when Fatah controlled Gaza, Haniyeh was PM –– and yet each party seeks only what is perceived as advantageous to its own strength.

So, what we've heard in the last few days is that they were close to an agreement, and then that they'd run into stumbling blocks. That Fatah almost walked out. That Hamas is balking.

Now a report has come from Yemen that they've signed an agreement, at a ceremony in San'a, the capital, at which Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, was present. The agreement, which is being referred to as the "San'a Declaration," says that they "accept the Yemeni initiative as a framework for resuming dialogue" that will enable them to "to return the Palestinian situation to what it was before the Gaza incidents."

This does not mean that the issues have been resolved, but rather that they intend to try to resolve them. Dialogue is supposed to resume in April in San'a, and will be based on the Yemeni initiative, which includes a unity government and merged "national" security forces.


The implications of this are huge.

There is the possibility that Rice and members of the EU will twist themselves into pretzels trying to find a way to continue the peace process even though Hamas doesn't recognize Israel. There was a time when I would have thought this ridiculous, but so much has transpired that is incredible, I am no longer certain.

Can anyone imagine Rice getting up forthrightly and saying, "We misjudged. Abbas is not the man who thought he was and he certainly does not merit continued support from the US. Any notion of promoting a two-state solution now is not viable." Nah...

But this is not likely to play well with Congress, which was sold a bill of goods about Abbas needing US largesse to serve as a bulwark against Hamas radicalism.

As I see it, in any event, if there is an agreement Hamas will come out the victor, given more credibility and the latitude to call the shots to a large degree. Fatah is weaker than it was when the first unity government was established, and Hamas was dominant then.


With all this, however, a new state of affairs may emerge that provides Israel with the latitude to assume a different, far more realistic posture. From the beginning Israel stated unequivocally that there would be no negotiations if Abbas dealt with Hamas.

An unnamed Israeli official has reported that a message has been sent to Abbas informing him that final status negotiations would stop if a unity government was to be formed. Israel didn't say that as he's talking with Hamas that is itself enough justification for halting negotiations. This would only be the case if there was a unity government, which hasn't yet been established by this agreement.

As I'm fond of saying, we will have to watch this closely.


Right now there is also the whole issue of the efforts by Egypt to negotiate a truce between Hamas and Israel.

From the Israeli side comes indication that this is highly unlikely, in part because weapons smuggling is continuing. But also –– I must believe –– because Hamas is seeking a "comprehensive" truce that includes Judea and Samaria, and just at a time when Hamas is gaining strength there.

Certainly top IDF officials are opposed to a truce, some fearing that Hamas would see this as a "reward." Their preference is for additional operations such as the one the IDF did two weeks ago.

But from Hamas and Islamic Jihad sources come reports of such a truce being close, with Egypt having delivered word of this on behalf of Israel. What is being said is that Israel will offer a one year truce if Hamas stops firing rockets. But this doesn't meet Israel's stipulations. Meanwhile, Al Hayat reported today that the Egyptians said that while Israel preferred a truce only in Gaza, they were willing to consider a "compehensive" deal. I don't believe everything I read, but I remain cautiously skeptical.

What amused me today was this: Abu Toameh reports that Egypt summoned Hamas and Islamic Jihad to an urgent meeting last night and "warned" them to stop smuggling weapons. The thrust of this message is that a deal will be possible if they stop. But we are not so foolish. Israel has stipulated, at a minimum, that Egypt had to seal the border with Gaza so there could be no smuggling. A "warning" does not suffice.


Yet another –– related –– issue must be mentioned here: That is the question of who supervises crossings into Gaza. Hamas monitoring, which is a joke, is not acceptable to Israel. But neither is Fatah monitoring, as this would lead to Hamas control of the situation. Even when Fatah was stronger, and in control of Gaza, it allowed Hamas to smuggle weapons. And now?

Egypt is said to be working out all sorts of deals on this issue.

Of course, ultimately a unity government may have to be factored into this equation.


Hezbollah claims to have "100% proof" that Israel is responsible for the murder of Mughniyeh. The traditional 40 day mourning period has just ended and Israel intends to maintain high alert at all international Israeli installations such a embassies and consulates, as well as at the border with Lebanon.


A recent Palestinian poll shows that 84% of the people approved the massacre at Mercaz Harav, and 64% support rocket attacks.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, March 23, 2008.

Israel's best option for combating Iran's ever strengthening nuclear threat is to exploit the Sunni Shiite thirteen century rift, concurrently strengthening the angst of risk aversive Sunni despots and so-called moderate Sunni rulers such as Saudi King Abdullah and Jordanian King Abdullah respectively. U.S. saber rattling and consequential military intervention aimed against Persian megalomaniacs such as President Mahmoud AhMADinejad, the Holocaust denying creep of "wipe Israel off the map" notorious notoriety, could be a non-starter, as hawkish leaders such as U.S.V.P. Dick Cheney, no matter what he says, would likely be trumped by a wide array of Democratic and Republican politicos as well as a war fatigued American public, military capital more than spent brewing costly nation building experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially the former. Iran has virtually declared war against Israel by threatening her existence, continues to arm proxy Hamas and Hizbullah savages who will likely someday attack Israel in a coordinated effort orchestrated by malignant Iranian maestros, and psychologically taunts the Jewish homeland on a daily basis, issuing orders to harass her stressed out citizens in Sderot and neighboring venues with deadly missile bombardments, inferring she is too weak to defend herself and stop the bleeding. That is no way to run a besieged nation, not knowing when the catastrophic dirty bomb or worse will wreck havoc on her entire population!

Yet, Israel needs alliances as she rightly prepares to counterattack. There is one prescient possibility. Convince, for one, OPEC high muckamuck Saudi King Abdullah, a practical anti-Semite, that it is in his best long term interest to starve the Shiite beast, albeit experience some necessary hunger pangs himself, temporarily open the fossil fuel taps as only he can do, saturate the oil market with an ocean of viscous black gold, thus lower the price of the one commodity that finances Iran's whirling nuclear centrifuges as well as nourishes its terrorist extremities. Furthermore, modern day Persia, a regime with perversely perverted priorities, now economically challenged despite a sea of oil revenues, maintains a shaky lid on a potential pressure cooker teeming with disgruntled Western leaning youths. The lid could indeed blow, less tightly sealed by a Revolutionary Guard force bereft of anticipated paychecks, as government funds begin to tap out due to those widely opened fossil fuel taps. Domestic dissension, brought on by an economy in shambles, resulting in an uprising of the masses, could indeed bring down those fundamentalist Iranian tyrants more efficiently and with less risk than any military action. Israeli's Mossad could clandestinely stir the pot, acting as a catalyst to yet again foment a revolution in a nation familiar with such scenarios. When a predatory regime is without its own predators, no longer held in check by surrounding Sunni Taliban forces and a Sadist Hussein led Sunni Iraq, internal weaknesses must be exploited to rob it of its vibrancy. Is there a better alternative?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, March 23, 2008.

My father, Edward Honigman, of blessed memory, returned home after spending four years as a gunner in the U.S. Navy's Armed Guard (assigned, especially, to protect Allied shipping from U-Boats and such) in World War II, met my mother, Sylvia, and soon joined the ranks of many others siring another baby boomer...me.

While their timing wasn't perfect, it was close enough.

I made my grand debut on May 8, 1948, Harry Truman's birthday...the President who would fight his own State Department within just a few days of my birth when he officially recognized the rebirth of Israel on May 14th. Thirteen years later I would become a Bar Mitzvah on that very same date.

So, I guess you could say that modern Israel and myself have sort of grown up together.

I have watched, with pride, as an Israel reborn arose from the ashes –– the risen phoenix of my millennially persecuted, subjugated, and massacred people. It did so on a miniscule portion of the world's real estate, where Jews have 4,000 years of continuous history, and proceeded to produce one of the most vibrant, advanced, and productive societies on Earth...things which only make assorted anti-Semites (including those masking themselves as anti-Zionists) hate it even more. While imperfect for sure, as all human endeavors are, compared to the largely tyrannical mess which surrounds the Jew of the Nations in its neighborhood, Israel is indeed a light unto the nations...the Biblical mission of its "chosenness."

While Arabs deliberately target the most innocent of Jews, Israel's Hadassah Hospital flies in Arabs for life-saving medical treatment unavailable in their own countries.

Recall that when Theodore Herzl –– the father of modern political Zionism –– approached Pope Pius X for support around the turn of the 20th century, he was told that this would be impossible since Jews –– the alleged deicide people –– were condemned to be perpetual wanderers since they rejected the divinity of Jesus. Herzl was later quoted as saying that, in retrospect, maybe his refusal to kiss the Pope's ring ticked the latter off even more and sealed the fate of their meeting.

No surprise here, however.

The road to Auschwitz was paved by many of such "sacred" teachings...including those of the Vatican's nemesis, Martin Luther, and even earlier in the Christian New Testament itself. The Gospel of John calls the Jews –– not "just" Pharisees –– children of the Devil. Not to mention similar problems in the Muslims' Qur'an.

If ever an Hebraic prophesy could send chills up one's spine, certainly Ezekiel 37 (the Valley of the Dry Bones) rang true in the aftermath of the slaughter of one third of all world Jewry during the Holocaust. Listen...

The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, and caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry.

And He said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. Again He said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.

Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:

And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone.

And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them.

Then said He unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.

So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

Then He said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.

Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves...

Within a few years of the Holocaust, besides remnants from the West, more Jews would flee Arab/Muslim lands to Israel than Arabs who fled in the reverse direction as a result of the combined Arab invasion of the renascent Jewish State in '48.

I have watched (and fought with my pen) from afar as an Israel, constantly under the spotlight's glare and subjected to hypocritical double standards by much of the rest of the world (including the American State Department –– still fighting Truman's ghost), struggled as hard as humanly possible to honor the moral and ethical imperatives of its Hebraic traditions while fighting enemies who delight in disemboweling Jewish children and their own as shahids.

As I have often noted, how dare Jews want, in one resurrected state covering less than one-sixth of one per cent of the Middle East (requiring a magnifying glass to find it on a world map), what Arabs have carved out for themselves in almost two dozen nations on over six million square miles of territory. Recall also that most of that territory was forcibly conquered and Arabized from native, non-Arab peoples. To Arabs, however, the area is simply purely Arab patrimony.

And resurrected, indeed Israel was...

To understand the meaning of reborn Israel to the Jew, one needs to know what Jewish history was like for two thousand years after the Jews dared to take on the conqueror of the world for their independence. A reading of the contemporary Roman-sponsored historians –– Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Josephus, etc. –– gives a 'non-Zionist' account of the fervor with which Jews fought for the freedom of their land.

Listen to Tacitus in Vol. II, Book V, The Works of Tacitus:

Vespasian... succeeded to the command... it inflamed his resentment that the Jews were the only nation that had not yet submitted...Titus was appointed by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea... he commanded three legions in Judaea itself... To these he added the twelfth from Syria and the third and twenty-second from Alexandria... amongst his allies were a band of Arabs, formidable in themselves and harboring towards the Jews the bitter animosity usually subsisting between neighboring nations

This was during the first revolt in 66-73 C.E. The Arch of Titus stands in Rome to this very day to commemorate this victory over the Jews.

Later, the emperor Hadrian became so enraged at the Jews' persistence that in 135 C.E., after the second major (and even more costly) revolt, he renamed Judaea Syria Palaestina –– Palestine –– after the Jews' historic enemies, the non-Semitic, non-Arab Philistines (who originated in the area around Crete), in an attempt to end the Jews' hopes once and for all.

Forced conversions, being branded the "deicide people," inquisitions, demonization, dehumanization, ghettos, blood libels, massacres, expulsions, the Holocaust, and constant existence as perpetual stranger in someone else's land became the plight of the Wandering Jew.

Estimates have placed the number of Jews murdered as a result of these experiences, prior to the Holocaust, in both the Christian West –– where they were considered to be "G_d killers" and children of the Devil –– or in the Muslim East, where there was no Holocaust per se, but where Jews were still frequently regarded as "killers of prophets" and kilab yahud "Jew dogs" (frequently never knowing what the morrow would bring) in the millions.

With all the imagined, real, and potential sins of nationalism, if ever any people needed the protection of their own nation state for just their very survival and to preserve their dignity, the Jews certainly fit the mold. Even the United States' General Ulysses S. Grant (the future President) issued expulsion orders to the Jews of the South during the Civil War.

As we approach both of our birthdays, my wish for Israel is that it regains leaders who will maintain the highest standards for Israel being a light unto the nations, but not at the sacrifice of its own long awaited resurrection and well being...no matter who is tightening the screws.

The hopes, dreams, and prayers of countless Jews over the millennia are at stake.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 23, 2008.

This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420743238&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

US Vice President Richard Cheney's visit to Iraq on the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom was given scant coverage in the media. And yet it may go down in history as a pivotal moment in the transformation of post-Saddam Iraq into a beacon of democracy and freedom in the Arab world. Hours after Cheney's departure, the Iraqi presidency council announced that it had approved the Iraqi parliament's provincial elections law. This long-awaited act will facilitate Iraq's development into a federal state and so cement the grassroots-level political progress that has made such strides in the last year as a result of the revised US counter-insurgency or "surge" campaign.

Five years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, with the majority of Americans convinced that the decision to invade Iraq was wrong, it is worth recalling that the decision to go to war in Iraq was immensely popular. In March 2003, 72 percent of Americans supported Bush's decision to invade the country and topple Saddam Hussein's regime. Moreover, public support for military action against Iraq was not an ephemeral phenomenon or simply a function of post-September 11 bellicosity.

Since Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Americans overwhelmingly perceived Iraq as a hostile country and Saddam Hussein specifically was seen, properly, as a US enemy. Throughout the 1990s there was bipartisan support for regime change in Iraq and indeed, regime change in Iraq was the stated policy of the Clinton administration. President Bill Clinton himself nearly went to war with Iraq in 1998 when Saddam suspended UN weapons inspections in the country.

At the same time, support for military action to propel regime change in Iraq was always controversial. Even after the September 11 attacks, and in the lead-up to the US-led invasion of Iraq, the public debate was fully engaged. Opponents of the strategy, who straddled both sides of the partisan divide, were outspoken in their criticism of the move even when public support for invasion was overwhelming.

After the Iraqi insurgency began in full force in 2004, the tenor of public debate on the Iraqi campaign became shrill, and largely irrelevant to the policy questions raised by the insurgency. Rather than discuss how to improve the situation in the country, opponents of the war devoted their energies to demonizing Bush and the war's supporters both within and outside the administration. The debate that ensued did not relate to how to win, but rather to who was to blame for the chaos increasingly engulfing the country.

The debate progressed in this fashion for three long years. For three years, opponents of the war demonized President George W. Bush and his supporters, and for three years, proponents of the war sought to minimize the importance of the insurgency in the hope that by denying its force, they could somehow wish it away.

The military strategy they chose for contending with the insurgency was based on their own denials of its strength. US forces were stationed in large bases outside population centers and only made their presence known when they went on specific raids based on specific intelligence. The hope was that by having a "small footprint," no one would notice they were there and would simply leave them alone. Of course, the consequence of the strategy was that the US essentially surrendered Iraqi villages and urban neighborhoods to the insurgents, and the Iraqi military forces they were training had no reason to take them seriously.

AS BUSH acknowledged this week in his address marking the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the decision to change the US strategy in Iraq was borne of desperation. By the end of 2006, with the Democratic victory in the Congressional elections, it was simply no longer possible to hide the fact that the US was surrendering the country to the jihadists.

In his words, "A little over a year ago, the fight in Iraq was faltering. Extremist elements were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos. They had established safe havens in many parts of the country. They were creating divisions among the Iraqis along sectarian lines. And their strategy of using violence in Iraq to cause divisions in America was working –– as pressures built here in Washington for withdrawal before the job was done."

For Bush then, the decision to take a gamble on the surge was the consequence of a real fear that the most important decision he made as president was about to go up in flames. For proponents of the war, the necessity of the surge –– which adopted classic counter-insurgency doctrine by moving US forces out of large bases and into population centers to win the trust of the public and mobilize them to help flush out the insurgents –– was dictated by their need to maintain their own credibility. Like Bush, they had staked their reputations on the war in Iraq. They understood that denial was no longer an option. To maintain their credibility, the US would actually have to engage in a long, hard slog.

Gen. David Petreaus, who commands coalition forces in Iraq, has frequently warned that military success in Iraq is not a long-term strategy for stabilizing the country. While inarguable, the fact is that without military success, which to date has enabled some 62% of Iraqis to say that they regard their security situation as good, there would be no way for Iraq to become politically stabilized.

The fact that today the Iraqi people are feeling optimistic about the future of their country is a consequence of the US's new surge strategy. The reason that the Iraqis are willing to make the hard choices necessary to facilitate Iraq's long-term political stability and liberalization as a multi-ethnic state is because today they believe that the US will not abandon them to the whims of their neighbors in Iran, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia and the Shi'ite militias and al-Qaida cells in Iraq.

THE POSITIVE trends being seen today in Iraq are made all the more apparent when they are viewed against the situation in the Palestinian Authority. Whereas Iraqi support for attacks against US forces has been declining steadily for the past year, in the PA, support for attacks against Israelis is at an all-time high. So too, while Shi'ite support for Shi'ite militias has dropped from 36% last spring to 22% today and support among Sunnis for the anti-al-Qaida "Awakening Groups" stands at 73%, support for terrorists among the Palestinians is steadily increasing: 84% of Palestinians support this month's massacre of yeshiva students in Jerusalem; 64% of Palestinians support the missile campaign against southern Israel.

In Iraq, the presidency council was forced by the US to accept the provincial election law to stabilize the country. The law is the result of a grassroots initiative of the Iraqis themselves. In contrast, in Palestinian society, leaders jockey for public support by increasing their radicalism. Fatah leader and PA President Mahmoud Abbas is today attempting to gain public support by adopting policies that are openly hostile to Israel and are based on a rejection of peaceful coexistence between Israel and a future Palestinian state.

This week The Jerusalem Post reported that Abbas has approved a plan to call for so-called Palestinian refugees to besiege Israel's borders with Lebanon, Gaza, Syria and Jordan on Israel's 60th Independence Day in May. The plan also calls for Americans, Europeans and Canadians of Palestinian descent to converge on Israel by air and sea that day in an attempt to force Israel to accept millions of foreign-born Arabs into the country.

This plan makes clear that as far as endgames are concerned, Abbas envisions a future without Israel that bears little distinction from Hamas's strategic aim of destroying the Jewish state. Not surprisingly, then, Abbas and his associates in Fatah are intensifying their efforts to reinstate a Fatah-Hamas government throughout Judea, Samaria and Gaza ahead of the Arab League summit in Syria scheduled for March 29.

In the midst of all of this, the Democratic-controlled US Congress approved a Bush administration request to transfer $150 million to the PA's treasury. This move was a reflection of the bipartisan support enjoyed by the Bush administration's efforts to oversee negotiations between the Olmert-Livni-Barak government and Abbas towards the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem by the end of the year.

The root of the great disparity between Bush's willingness to gamble on the surge to prevent failure in Iraq and his unwillingness to change course on his policy towards the Palestinians when it is clear that his strategy of establishing a Palestinian state is only strengthening jihadists is found in the absence of public debate in Washington on the feasibility of the US Palestinian strategy. The fact is that for the past 15 years, since the US first embraced the PLO as a peace partner for Israel, there has been no significant political debate in the US regarding the reasonableness of the strategy of appeasing the Palestinians by pressuring Israel not to defend itself from attack and empowering the Palestinians with financial assistance and military training.

AND, OF course, the same is true in Israel. It is unclear whether the Americans have prevented Israeli leaders from accepting that the two-state paradigm is a failed paradigm, or if Israeli leaders have convinced the Americans not to accept the failure of the paradigm. Probably both have contributed to the current policy paralysis in Jerusalem and Washington alike.

What is clear is that in the absence of such a debate, unlike the situation in Iraq, no significant bloc of policymakers or politicians in Washington feels like it has a stake in the policy's failure. As a consequence, year in and year out, the US promotes a policy that has no chance of succeeding. And year in and year out, as the Palestinians become increasingly supportive of jihad, administration officials make increasingly absurd, statements about the need to empower them still further. So it is that this week US Ambassador Richard Jones told the Post that Jews will just have to leave Jerusalem because the US opposes building Jewish neighborhoods beyond the 1949 armistice lines in the city and young families cannot afford increasingly expensive existing housing in the city.

One could say that the tentative progress of democracy in Iraq is the consequence of an engaged, democratic debate in America that forced people to make decisions and forced the administration to contend with reality.

It is similarly due to the absence of such a debate about the failure of the US's attempts to appease the Palestinians that forces of terror and tyranny are on the rise in Ramallah and Gaza as Israel debates mindlessly about whether residents of the South will just have to live with daily missile attacks in their living rooms and kindergartens and massacres in their schools, or whether something lasting might be done about it.

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Harold Chiott, March 23, 2008.

It's worth repeating over and over again...
If you don't forward anything else, forward this!!!!

Eisenhower In Dachau

It is a matter of history that when Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps, he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead..

He did this because he said in words to this effect:

'Get it all on record now –– get the films –– get the witnesses –– because somewhere down the track of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing'.

This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian peoples looking the other way!

Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

This e-mail is intended to reach 40 million people worldwide!

Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.

Contact Harold Chiott at hnchiott@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, March 22, 2008.

This was accumulated by Kevin Weakley
http://amboytimes.typepad.com/the_amboy_times/2007/02/the_list_of_thi.html The original has live links to articles on the named subjects.

Would anybody care to update this?

This list is a work in progress. I welcome suggestions. Anyone who has more items to add to the list, post them in the comments.

The intent of the list is to illustrate the futility of the multicultural approach to Islam. Sharia law demands submission not only from Muslims, but from non-Muslims as well. This makes respectful coexistence nearly impossible with Muslims in Infidel lands. The examples below serve as reminder that submitting to one complaint or another only emboldens Muslims to seek to further their ultimate goal of establishing sharia.

The West needs to come to grips with this fact and start standing up for our God-given rights of free speech, free expression and freedom of religion, lest we surrender those rights to a theocratic movement bent on removing our Constitutional freedoms that we hold dear. In this case, our tolerance will lead to intolerance.


The English Flag being flown in England, as well as St. George Pins, worn by Englishmen in England, Austrian flag, Soccer Ball with Saudi Flag, Stepping on Makeshift Hamas and Hezbollah Flags, The Israeli Flag, and of course...the American Flag.


The World Trade Center, The Pentagon, The Giant Buddha's, The new Apple store in Manhattan. The Beslan Memorial, Pool halls and coffee shops, Kaaba-Shaped Bar in NY, Movie Theaters, the Graves of Biblical Joshua and Caleb, The Eiffel Tower, Coffee Shops.


The Trinity, Pope Benedict XVI. Pope John Paul II, Coptic Pope Shenouda III., Robert Spencer, The name "Crusaders", The Cross, Christmas presents, Bibles, selling Bibles, Lip synching videos, Craig Winn, Prayer, Valentine's Day, Christians who accidently touch the Koran, Street Evangelists, The Letter X, Muslim converts to Christianity, the Knights of Malta, The Bishop of Rochester, Use of the word Allah by Catholics, Christians proselytizing to Muslims, Church Bells, a picture of Jesus hung on a staffroom wall.


The existence of Israel, The reality of the holocaust, Holocaust Day (UK), Teaching of the Holocaust, Annapolis Peace Talks, A Rabbi speaking at an Islamic University, An Israeli Vodka Bottle with a Picture of Jerusalem, Paper cups that were made in Israel.

Hindus/Buddhist's/other Religions

The Dalai Lama, Baha'i, Pagans, Zoroastrians.


The Danish Cartoons, Videos of Danes drawing Mohammed. Cartoons about Uday and Qusay's death. These photoshops, The Buddy Christ, Cambridge University cartoon, Pokemon, Opus, David Low's Jack Hobbs cartoon, "Mohammed Cat" cartoon.


The Movie "The Passion of the Christ" The Italian Film, 'Il mercante di pietre' (The Stone Merchant) "24", Disney's "Aladdin", Theo Van Gogh's "Submission", A French play by Voltaire, "Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World" Rubber duck hostage video, Ohio CarAd, The Movie,"300" PBS Documentary "Islam v Islamists", Jihad, the Musical, True Lies the Movie, Michael Savage, Paul Harvey, You Tube, Fitna the Movie.


Burger King ice cream cones, Jewish cookies, Israeli Dates, pork, even when consumed by non-Muslims. Alcohol, Quebec day-care lunch menu, Hot-Cross Buns, Cola Cola, Pepsi, Easter Eggs, Ham Sandwiches accidentally served to Muslim prisoners, Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches served in Jail, Parking lot sign jokingly labeled "the Porking Yard", Doritos.


Music in general, A rap CD with Quranic verses. An award winning Spanish song, A party honoring late rock star Freddy Mercury, Mozart, Gospel music in a church van, a Muslim prayer set to House Music, Rock Singer who Bared his Chest, Vande Mataram, the Indian National Anthem.


Disc jockey humor, "Terrorist" fireworks safety ad.


Piggy banks The Chinese "Year of the Pig" Toy Pigs, Pig-shaped stress relievers, Piglet from Winnie the Pooh, The Three Little Pigs, Nature course that included Pigs, Pig shaped playground toys, Dogs, guide dogs, Lost Dog Poster, Walking the Dog.

Public Figures

Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem, and Zachariah Anani, "The 3 Ex-Terrorists." Daniel Pipes, Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, MP Phil Woolas (UK), Virgil Goode, Jack Straw, Bloggers, The US Congress, Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe, Mayor of Mirfield Robert Bennett, Afghan Journalist Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Geert Wilders, Prince Harry.


The passport photo of a 5 year old girl, Women who allow themselves to be raped, The Panty Jihad, Egyptian feminist Nawal al-Saadawi, The clitoris, Hugging a man in public, The breats of female mannequins, female dolls, pin-ups on RAF jets, Unclothed Sex, Breast Feeding, Britney and Madonna, Male Gynaecologists, the word Women, refusing to wear the hijab, Benazir Bhutto, Nouriya Al Subeeh, Female Medic's Hygiene Rules, Hair Salons that refuse Headscarfs. a woman sitting with a man in a Starbucks, wearing makeup, not wearing socks, sharing a gym with men.

Books/Publications and writers

Salmon Rushdie's "Satanic Verses", Rushdie's Knighthood, A book by an Egyptian feminist., French and German Newspapers, Tampa Flyers, Nobel Prize winning author, Naguib Mahfouz, Harry Potter, The autobiography of Norwegian politician Carl I. Hagen "Ærlig talt", Bangladeshi feminist writer Taslima Nasreen, National Review, Mark Steyn, These 11 books, Wikipedia, Passant Rashad, First Bible Stories, Saudi writers Abdullah bin Bejad al-Otaibi and Yousef Aba al-Khail, Dr Rachael Ehrenfeld.


Tate British Museum, Delta College, Harper College Photo Exhibit, Iranian artist Sooreh Hera, "ZOG" exhibition by art group Surrend.


Barbers, eyebrow plucking for men, Hair Gel.


Western-style trousers, Colored Underwear, Nike "flame" logo, Shoes and Pants bearing the Arabic symbol for Allah, Italian Soccer Team's Shirts, Iraqi Tennis Players Wearing Shorts.


Airport security, A Yemini man who refused to wake up for prayers, Mustafa Shag, Prison toilets, Indrek Wichman, Chess, Staring or looking, Polio Vaccine, a moment of silence to commemorate 9/11 in Brussels, Koran-Themed Toilet Seats, Exxon, LAPD, Bluetooth, Witchcraft, the term "War on Terror", Emergency Relief from the USN, Teddy Bear named Mohammed by Schoolchildren, Sweden, Homosexuals, Shi'ite Jokes, Anti terrorist Billboard, Self-Defense, Toilets facing Mecca, Eating near Muslims during Ramadan, Joining the British Army, Flirting, Muslim medical students are refusing to learn about about Alcoholism or STDs, Loan interest. Polio Vaccine.

Contributing Blogs and websites

Velvet Hammer, LGF, Brussels Journal, Apple Blog, Planck's Constant, Prophet of Doom, Jihad Watch, Dhimmi Watch, Frontpage, Stop the ACLU, Beautiful Atrocities, Stiknstein, Woman Honor Thyself, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Newsbusters, Jihad Du Jour, Free Repulic, Lost Budgie Blog, Blogcritics, NeoCon Command Center, Democracy Frontline, The Dougout, Dhimmitude News Network, Foreign Policy, Wisdom of the Realm, It's Curtains for You..., Eye on the World, Cryptic Subterrainean, House of Eratosthenes, Sugiero, Random-American, Scarlett Crusader, Flanders Fields, Chronicles of Atlantis, Astute Bloggers, Infidels Blogger Alliance, Winds of Jihad, The Jawa Report, Micheal Rittenhouse The Daily Atheist, Atheist Media Blog, Media Backspin, Elder of Zion.

Add your blog here by contributing a unique item to the list.

Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Kannan Devan, March 22, 2008.

This was adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. www.frontline.org.za/books_videos/sti.htm

It has appeared –– inter alia –– on
http://tmq2.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/how-muslims-and-islam-operate/ from Shlomo Muslim, Ph.D. ; from
http://www.americancongressfortruth.org; and from
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/03/ islam-is-not-religion-nor-is-it-cult-it_16.html

The percentages source is from "CIA: The World ..."

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called "religious rights."

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their "religious rights," they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States –– Muslim 1.0%
Australia –– Muslim 1.5%
Canada –– Muslim 1.9%
China –– Muslim 1%-2%
Italy –– Muslim 1.5%
Norway –– Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark –– Muslim 2%
Germany –– Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom –– Muslim 2.7%
Spain –– Muslim 4%
Thailand –– Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves –– along with threats for failure to comply (United States).

France –– Muslim 8%
Philippines –– Muslim 5%
Sweden –– Muslim 5%
Switzerland –– Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands –– Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago –– Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris –– car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam –– Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana –– Muslim 10%
India –– Muslim 13.4%
Israel –– Muslim 16%
Kenya –– Muslim 10%
Russia –– Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia –– Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia –– Muslim 40%
Chad –– Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon –– Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania –– Muslim 70%
Malaysia –– Muslim 60.4%
Qatar –– Muslim 77.5%
Sudan –– Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh –– Muslim 83%
Egypt –– Muslim 90%
Gaza –– Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia –– Muslim 86.1%
Iran –– Muslim 98%
Iraq –– Muslim 97%
Jordan –– Muslim 92%
Morocco –– Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan –– Muslim 97%
Palestine –– Muslim 99%
Syria –– Muslim 90%
Tajikistan –– Muslim 90%
Turkey –– Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates –– Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" –– the Islamic House of Peace –– there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan –– Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia –– Muslim 100%
Somalia –– Muslim 100%
Yemen –– Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel."
–– Leon Uris, "The Haj"

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.

Contact Kannan Devan at kannanivmn@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Canadian International Peace Project (CIPP), March 22, 2008.

This comes from BBC News and was posted by Ahmed Hussen, Director of Communications, CIPP.

LEFT: Civilians were forced to flee amid Friday's violence

Clashes have broken out between Palestinian factions in a refugee camp in southern Lebanon.

The fighting was between members of the Fatah faction and an Islamist group called Jund al-Sham.

It took place in the densely populated Ain al-Hilwe refugee camp, which is located on the outskirts of the southern city of Sidon.

Fighters launched rockets and exchanged gunfire in the middle of the camp, causing dozens of civilians to flee.

Lebanese and Palestinian officials said one Fatah member was killed and four others wounded, the Associated Press news agency reported.

Splinter group

Tension had been high following the arrest by Fatah on Thursday of Samir Maarouf.

He is a commander in the Jund al-Sham, a relatively small faction in the Palestinian camp, which is believed to have around 50 armed members.

LEFT: Map of Lebanon

Fatah handed Mr Maarouf over to the Lebanese army, accusing him of violence.

Formed in 2002, Jund al-Sham –– literally the Army of Greater Syria –– is a radical splinter group.

Its name refers to the area covering the modern states of Syria and Lebanon and the Palestinian territories –– which the group says form one Muslim land.

The group has been blamed or claimed responsibility for a number of bombings and gun battles in Lebanon and Syria.

Last year it fought Lebanese troops after joining a revolt by fellow Islamic militant group Fatah al-Islam that was centred on the northern refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared.

Ain al-Hilwe is the largest of Lebanon's 12 Palestinian refugee camps, with a population of 70,000.

It is under Palestinian jurisdiction and off limits to the Lebanese authorities.

Palestinian security officials have been meeting inside the camp to try to restore order.

Contact CIPP at cipp@rogers.com and visit their website: www.canadianipp.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, March 22, 2008.

This was written by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is Director American Center for Democracy and author of several books, the latest: Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed –– and How to Stop It.

Alyssa A. Lappen is a US-based investigative journalist focusing on the Middle East and related issues. Her work has appeared frequently in FrontPageMagazine.com, AmericanThinker.com, the Center for Security Policy and other internet and print journals.

The Bush Administration's search for partners to promote "peace" and "democracy" within the Palestinian Authority (PA) resembles Lord Charles Bowen's "blind man in a dark room looking for a black hat –– which isn't there".

For the first time, the Bush Administration plans to give $150 million in cash directly to the Palestinian Authority (PA) Treasury, as part of a $496.5 million "aid" package, including $410 million for development programs. This added to the $86.5 million for CIA "security training", which Congress authorized in April 2007.

The CIA has apparently assumed the Palestinian terrorist-training role previously held by the former Soviet Union. Since 1994, the CIA armed and trained thousands of Palestinian "security forces", who subsequently joined every Palestinian terrorist organization.

CIA Palestinian training success is best described by a member of the PA's Chairman own security unit –– Force 17, officer Abu Yusef: "The operations of the Palestinian resistance would [not] have been so successful and "would not have killed more than 1,000 Israelis since 2000, and defeated the Israelis in Gaza without [American military] trainings," he boasted in August 2007.

Since the Oslo Accords, the PA received some $14 billion to $20 billion in international aid, according to a 2007 Funding for Peace Coalition (FPC) report to the British Parliament. Each Palestinian received $4,000 to $8,000 per year. In comparison, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), provided $1 billion in humanitarian aid for 2.5 million Darfur refugees from 2003 to 2006 –– only $100 per person annually. Moreover, of the $7 billion pledged international aid, only $5 billion were spent to assist more than 5 million Tsunami victims in more than 15 countries on two continents.

The PA received "the highest per capita aid transfer in the history of foreign aid anywhere", according to former World Bank country director for Gaza and the West Bank, Nigel Roberts. Not surprisingly, hundreds of thousands of Gazans spent more than $300 million in less than two week shopping spree, after Hamas blew up the border with Egypt. Yet, the Palestinian economy is in ruins, Why?

In March 2007, PA Prime Minister and former World Bank official Salam Fayyad, told London's Daily Telegraph: "No one can give donors that assurance" that funds reach their designated destinations. "Where is all of the transparency in all of this? It's gone." Controlling Palestinian finances, Fayyad concluded, is "virtually impossible".

Palestinian violence has escalated since the 1994 PA establishment and PA officials have produced an unbroken record of unfulfilled promises and outright deception. Yet President George W. Bush in his January 28 State of the Union Address, reassured the Palestinians that "America will do, and I will do, everything we can to help them achieve...a Palestinian state by the end of this year."

Nevertheless, US-favored PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who in 1957 with Yasser Arafat co-founded the al Fatah terrorist group, assumed the role of his predecessor. Like Muslim Brotherhood, Marxist- trained Jihadist Arafat, neither does Abbas "recognize that confronting terror is essential to achieving a state where his people can live in dignity and at peace with Israel," as President Bush declared.

Abbas remains committed to the organization's raison d'etre –– destroying Israel and expelling the Jewish people from the region. Despite public Fatah-Hamas leadership disagreements, branding one another "murderers and thieves", Abbas arranged on Jan. 30 to give Hamas $3.1 billion of $7.7 billion that international donor community pledged last December in Paris.

Abbas' support for Hamas is not new. In Feb. 2007, He announced, "We must unite the Hamas and Fatah blood in the struggle against Israel as we did at the beginning of the intifada." He stated this en route to Mecca to meet with the Saudi King, and Hamas terror chiefs Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh. The Saudis pledged hundreds of millions of dollars in "humanitarian aid" –– which, like previous pledges, they failed to deliver.

Rather than $660 million in annual aid the Saudis promised in 2002, the kingdom donated only $84 million since then, according to World Bank reports. Other Arab League members, who in 2002 promised $55 million monthly to foster PA economic development, gave even less.

Meanwhile, however, the Saudis and the Gulf states funneled hundreds of millions of petrodollars –– some raised in government-sponsored telethons –– to reward Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Hamas and Palestinian Jihad suicide bombers and fuel the anti-Israel Jihad. Indeed, "Saudi Arabia remains a source of recruits and finances for...Levant-based militants," said National Intelligence Director J. Michael McConnell, before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on February 5, 2008.

McConnell should have included USAID on his terror-funding list. A Dec. 2007 USAID audit reported that the mission administering its funds gave money to groups and institutions affiliated with US designated terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It warned: "Without additional controls, the mission could inadvertently provide support to entities or individuals associated with terrorism."

USAID "failure" to prevent funds from reaching Palestinian terrorist is not surprising given US previous Administrations support for Arafat, and now for Abbas, who repeatedly claims: "We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation," while reiterating his desire for "a political partnership with Hamas".

It is time for President Bush to remove his blinders and stop donating US-taxpayer funds to this murderous partnership. It is also time for Congress to demand a proper monitoring program to oversee the legitimate use of US aid to the Palestinians.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, March 21, 2008.

This article was written by Rabbi Shmuel M. Butman and was published March 14, 2008 in the Jewish Press http://www.jewishpress.com. It was reprinted March 21, 2008 in Israel Commentary

Many who protect the insane policies of Israel's leaders hear the refrain: "We don't want to get involved in politics." However, our focus is not on trivial politics, such as who'll enjoy the cozy perches of power or receive the most government largesse. Our concern is lives –– the safety and survival of our brothers and sisters in the Holy Land, and, by extension, our entire people's continued safety and security, even their very existence, in every corner of the world.

Over 40 years ago, with incredible miracles, Israel won the Six-Day War and gained an enviable position of strength. For the first time since independence in 1948, the Jewish state attained a position where its existence was not directly threatened. In the South, it gained vast territorial depth –– the entire Sinai –– insulating its heartland from direct Egyptian attack. In the North, it gained the dominating Golan Heights, so that Syrian guns could no longer threaten the whole Galilee. In the East, it gained Judea and Samaria, including the land's strategic central highlands and a straight, far more defensible, border along the Jordan.

Despite symbolic protests from the Soviet block and others, the world then was ready to let Israel keep all its gains and to settle Jews in all liberated territories –– just as, de facto, it had acquiesced to Israel keeping its gains after the 1949 armistice with the invading Arab nations. But, Israel's leaders (for some inexplicable reason perhaps having to do with the perverted Jewish psyche. jsk), felt uncomfortable with their conquests. Right after the 1967 war, they sent messages to Washington that they were ready to relinquish all those territories!

Ever since, the situation has deteriorated, stage by stage. When the Arabs saw how Israel was embarrassed by its gains, they instantly ratcheted up their demands. It encouraged them to provoke the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which threatened Israel's very survival.

When Jimmy Carter decided he had to redeem his presidency by making a peace deal in the Middle East, Israel's embarrassment with it's conquests enabled him to twist Menachem Begin's arm to forfeit all the Sinai's strategic territorial depth –– together with its flourishing Jewish settlements, its oil wells developed by Jewish ingenuity, and its lucrative tourist resorts. Israel exchanged all this for a worthless slip of paper promising peace, the terms of which Egypt immediately violated and has done ever since.

The Camp David Accords provided the model for all later pressure. If the IDF could forcibly evict Jews from their homes in Yamit, why not pressure Israel to do the same elsewhere? It encouraged the PLO to make terrorist attacks on Israel's north, from Lebanon and later the Arabs within the Holy Land to start the first Intifada. It encouraged the rest of the world to press for more and more Israeli concessions.

In 1982, Israel had no choice but to enter Lebanon. It had the PLO by the throat, but was too embarrassed to finish off the job, caving in to let them to leave for Tunisia. Yet, instead of letting them stay there, Israel's leaders, with incredible naivety, decided in 1993 to welcome the PLO "thugocracy" into the very heart of the Holy Land, raising them to the status of a quasi-sovereign government, arming them –– with the naïve intention of stopping own hoodlums from terror acts against Jews and awarding them generous funding!

Naturally, the PLO utilized these unexpected gifts to do their thing –– to escalate terror against Jews to unprecedented highs. But, Israel's leaders still didn't learn their lesson. The PLO has never kept any of its agreements, so Israel has had every right to cancel them. But, Israel has been too embarrassed to show it does not meekly turn the other cheek. Instead, ever since, all its leaders again and again have rewarded the PLO with more territory, more arms, more funds and more concessions.

Even when Sharon decided –– without any external pressure –– to award them the entire Gaza Strip, although it meant uprooting many thousands of peaceful Jewish citizens from their homes, he gained no points with the Arabs, or with the rest of the world. Instead the area turned into a brand-new rogue state, a front for Iran and Al Qaeda, that commits daily aggression against Israel's citizens and threatens the stability of the whole Middle East and, potentially, of the entire world.

Have Israel's leaders learned their lesson yet? Of course not! They're still running after the PLO to agree to negotiate with them, and after Syria to agree to take back the Golan. Even when PLO leader Abbas boasts how he started the original violence against Israel and that he still intends to use violence when it will work, even when his Fatah and Al-Aksa brigadiers continue to commit terrorism –– which could not be without his knowledge. Nevertheless, Israel's naïve leaders are begging him for the honor of accepting everything they have to offer him.

Protesting against this stupidity is called politics? Inspired by the repeated prophetic warnings of the Rebbe over 25 years, we're just pointing out what any sane, objective person realizes on his own; that these misguided policies place the life of every Jew in the Holy Land in dire peril. First, it was the Jews beyond the "Green Line" –– in Judea and Samaria. Then it's the Jews of Sderot, and gradually more and more communities in that area. Now it's already reaching Ashkelon. How long will it take to reach Ashdod and then Tel Aviv?

Furthermore, it's not that this doesn't affect us in the Diaspora. Anti-Semitic incidents are increasing frighteningly across Europe and around the world, because all Jew-haters everywhere are encouraged by their comrades' successes in the Holy Land. Let's call a spade a spade: This isn't politics! Our very survival is at stake. Israel's leaders are playing games while every Jew's future is burning!

[In the meantime, the leading Diaspora organizations are too frightened and deliberately uninformed to accept the truth. Instead they use "not their right to get involved" as a cop-out. G-d forbid, they will sooner than later experience the dire consequences of this cop-out just as generations have done before thus contributing directly in their own demise. –– Jsk]

Additional comment from a reader:

And Sharon uprooted the Jewish homes in Gaza!! Also, remember that even the limited Egyptian restraint is to AVOID losing their annual 2.5 billion USA bonus that no one talks about for allowing Israel to give up all the oil, the strategic depth, a beautiful town, etc. for Sinai, not to forget the loss of the airfields so crucial for training purposes? Menachem Begin was outsmarted by Sadat and the arch enemy of the Jews, Jimmy Carter.. And Ben Gurion in 1948 sinking THE ALTALENA, WHEN Rabin shot and killed Jews, destroyed a boat load of desperately needed ammunition and supplies on Ben Gurions's orders.
–– Jerry Boris

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org).

To Go To Top

Posted by Ya'aqov Ben-Yehudah, March 21, 2008.

Yekutiel Ben-Ya'akov stands convicted of "Incitement to Racism," and is expected to be sentenced on this coming Tuesday. Below is my translation of a poster (go to original post, and click image to enlarge) which can be seen around Israel, protesting the Israeli government's policies, which have failed to protect its citizens.

To summarize Judge Friedman-Feldman's ruling:

The Expulsion of Jews Is Not Racism


To Suggest the Expulsion of Hostile Arabs Is Racism

Such is what the "religious" Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman has ruled –– in a ruling she gave against Yekutiel Ben-Ya'akov who was convicted of "Incitement to Racism," for arranging an independent, national referendum (http://mishal.org/eng/). In a referendum which was set up before the expulsion of Jews from Gaza ("Disengagement"), the Misha'lot Yisrael organization, under the authority of Yekutiel Ben-Ya'akov, offered two proposals tens of thousands of participants in the poll were asked to choose between "Sharon's Disengagement Plan," which meant the expulsion of thousands of Jews from their homes, and the "Jewish Disengagement Plan," to expel hostile Arabs, and to move them far away from the borders of the Land of Israel to prevent terrorist attacks and the shooting of Kassam rockets over Israel's cities.

Come protest against this injustice, on the day the judge is to pass sentence on Yekutiel. He can face up to five years imprisonment. Whoever supports such a ruling which even prohibits the mounting of a "survey," suggesting the removal of our enemies from Israel, an participant in any terror attack or Kassam that falls!

Dear Families in Mourning and People who dwell in Zion, We are sorry!

...but Judge Rivka Frienman-Feldman and her friends have decided: The need to protect the rights and sensitivities of Arab enemies overrides the right of our children to live!!!

The death sentence of the eight holy men and boys killed on Rosh Hodesh Adar Bet 5768 (March 7, 2008) at the Merkaz HaRav Yeshivah, was signed and sealed of by the ring of the Ahashveroshes and encouraged by the Hamans who sit in the Kenesset, and who interpret the law in the courthouses.

We are really sorry, but consolation is not at all relevant. written norms in the Kenesset and in the courts to continue to remain amongst us to butcher us and our children (May God have mercy on us!).

Whoever does not protest against this is complicit in murder, and will not be able to say that his hands have not spilled any of this blood.

Demonstration across from the Courthouse, Tuesday, 18 Adar Bet 5768 (March, 2008), 9:30 AM (the time of sentencing arguments)

Andras Bereny (bereny@tin.it) of Mishalot Yisrael wrote:

Miscarriage of Justice

Killing Jews has become a best business opportunity for palestinian Arabs today: The more Jews they kill the more international aid funds they receive and the more international aid funds they receive the more Jews they kill. If you don't like this and actually do something to stop it, State prosecution and Judge Rivkah Feldman are quick to declare you a "racist", as it happened to Mishalot Yisrael Director Yekutiel Ben Yakov, who is facing up to five years in jail. His crime? He is scheduled to be sentenced before the Jerusalem (Russian Compound) court for sponsoring an opinion poll before the disengagement expulsion featuring the following question: Do you prefer The Sharon Plan to expel 10,000 Jews from their homes or the Jewish Alternative Plan to expel our enemies and to distance the threat of kassams and terror?

You may ask yourself: What is more racist, expelling Jews because they are Jews or asking people a simple question? The answer in Israel today: Asking people a simple question! This politically motivated miscarriage of justice against Yekutiel Ben Yakov in particular and the Jewish People of Israel in general must be contested. We'll meet in front of the Jerusalem court house at 9 am this coming Tuesday, on 25 March. Please mark the date, come if you can and bring people with you. Also, please diffuse this request and show support to Yekutiel Ben Yakov and for a just cause.

Am Israel Chai!

Contact Ya'aqov Ben-Yehudah by email at yaaqov.ben.yehudah@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 21, 2008.


Hamas used smuggled and US weapons against IDF troops. Hamas had confiscated US guns from Fatah armories, on taking over (IMRA, 3/3).


In several areas of the P.A. in Judea-Samaria and in Jerusalem, Muslims rose up against Israel, shooting and throwing stones (IMRA, 3/3).

That's the supposedly moderate area of the P.A., to which Israel is supposed to grant sovereignty in return for a promise to keep the promises of peace and anti-terrorism that the P.A. has broken for 14 years.


Neve Gordon is a crude anti-Israel professor whom Prof. Steven Plaut had described accurately as a non-scholar, neo-Nazi defamer of our people. Prof. Gordon sued Plaut for libel, and won. The judge was an Arab who expressed freely her own bias against Israel. She upheld Holocaust revisionism, described terrorist leaders as 'militants,' and declared that all of Israel is on land 'stolen from another people.'" She accepted Gordon's lies.

The appeals court overturned that verdict as full of errors. The suit had aimed to silence Plaut, but Plaut raised the funds to defend himself. Plaut suggests further defending freedom of speech by ousting the bigoted judge. He hopes that the ruling will expose Neve Gordon's Ben-Gurion University as an anti-Zionist institution that hires extreme leftists without academic qualification.

The appeals court allowed 10% of the original damages to stand, though there was no libel and Gordon did not show any damages. The court wanted to discourage comparisons to the Nazis. How hypocritical! Left-wingers compare Israel to the Nazi regime without being penalized (Plaut, 3/4/08).


A Saudi called Israel's raid on Gaza a mass killing. 70 Gazans were killed in it (IMRA, 3/3/08).

Just 70 is a "mass killing?" Battle Cry, by Leon Uris, describes some battles between US Marines and Japanese in which 7,000 were killed. The Muslims exaggerate deliberately and by so much, that they should be denounced for slander and for incitement to violence. It's all in a day's work for them in behalf of jihad.


Hamas used smuggled and US weapons against IDF troops. Hamas had confiscated US guns from Fatah armories, on taking over (IMRA, 3/3).


In several areas of the P.A. in Judea-Samaria and in Jerusalem, Muslims rose up against Israel, shooting and throwing stones (IMRA, 3/3).

That's the supposedly moderate area of the P.A., to which Israel is supposed to grant sovereignty in return for a promise to keep the promises of peace and anti-terrorism that the P.A. has broken for 14 years.


Neve Gordon is a crude anti-Israel professor whom Prof. Steven Plaut had described accurately as a non-scholar, neo-Nazi defamer of our people. Prof. Gordon sued Plaut for libel, and won. The judge was an Arab who expressed freely her own bias against Israel. She upheld Holocaust revisionism, described terrorist leaders as 'militants,' and declared that all of Israel is on land 'stolen from another people.'" She accepted Gordon's lies.

The appeals court overturned that verdict as full of errors. The suit had aimed to silence Plaut, but Plaut raised the funds to defend himself. Plaut suggests further defending freedom of speech by ousting the bigoted judge. He hopes that the ruling will expose Neve Gordon's Ben-Gurion University as an anti-Zionist institution that hires extreme leftists without academic qualification.

The appeals court allowed 10% of the original damages to stand, though there was no libel and Gordon did not show any damages. The court wanted to discourage comparisons to the Nazis. How hypocritical! Left-wingers compare Israel to the Nazi regime without being penalized (Plaut, 3/4/08).


A Saudi called Israel's raid on Gaza a mass killing. 70 Gazans were killed in it (IMRA, 3/3/08).

Just 70 is a "mass killing?" Battle Cry, by Leon Uris, describes some battles between US Marines and Japanese in which 7,000 were killed. The Muslims exaggerate deliberately and by so much, that they should be denounced for slander and for incitement to violence. It's all in a day's work for them in behalf of jihad.


Isracampus is the web site replacing Israel Academia Monitor. The new site is more professional and broader. It exposes the host of Israel-hating, non-scholarly propagandists on university public payrolls, who try to subvert the country, as by organizing foreign boycotts against Israel.

The web site and its predecessor made many people aware of such activities. Those activities no longer go on until they can't be stopped. Instead, people are demanding that the universities enforce academic standards and not hire unqualified academics who agitate for the destruction of the state. The regular media is taking up the controversy. The public is becoming outraged over the abuse of classrooms for anti-Israel courses.

The exposure to indignation and ridicule has caused a number of extreme leftists to hesitate to disseminate false propaganda. University administrations find themselves on the defensive for hiring so many undistinguished, defamers of the country. Being observed keeps universities more honest about this (Prof. Steven Plaut, 3/3.) Plaut helps run the site.

The US counterpart of the monitoring is accused of repressing freedom of speech. The monitoring is speech, without which there was less freedom, since the Left could repress opponents or not hire professors with other views.


They say that the Muslims are rising up against Israel in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem, in outrage over IDF attacks in Gaza. The riots and attempted lynching are not spontaneous. They are organized. Included are Arab students at Israeli universities, who merely demonstrated, and Arabs in eastern Jerusalem who attempted to lynch municipal workers, blocking their car, throwing rocks through the windows, and beating the car with metal rods. Police fired at rioters' legs. A Jewish leader urged Jews not to give in and to continue to use all parts of the city (Arutz-7, 3/4/08).

There is no excuse for rioting. Nor have the Muslims a grievance over Israeli raids into Gaza. As the Israeli government states clearly, if Gazans didn't attack Israel, Israel wouldn't attack Gazans. I think that Israel should attack Gaza all out, ending potential war from there. What nerve, to bombard Israeli cities and then wax indignant when Israel seeks out the perpetrators and only them.

This is war not isolated incidents. I think the rioters are trying to kill and take over the country. Police should tell them to surrender or be shot dead. Police action being weak, the plea for Jews to frequent all parts of Jerusalem is humiliating.


Isracampus is the web site replacing Israel Academia Monitor. The new site is more professional and broader. It exposes the host of Israel-hating, non-scholarly propagandists on university public payrolls, who try to subvert the country, as by organizing foreign boycotts against Israel.

The web site and its predecessor made many people aware of such activities. Those activities no longer go on until they can't be stopped. Instead, people are demanding that the universities enforce academic standards and not hire unqualified academics who agitate for the destruction of the state. The regular media is taking up the controversy. The public is becoming outraged over the abuse of classrooms for anti-Israel courses.

The exposure to indignation and ridicule has caused a number of extreme leftists to hesitate to disseminate false propaganda. University administrations find themselves on the defensive for hiring so many undistinguished, defamers of the country. Being observed keeps universities more honest about this (Prof. Steven Plaut, 3/3.) Plaut helps run the site.

The US counterpart of the monitoring is accused of repressing freedom of speech. The monitoring is speech, without which there was less freedom, since the Left could repress opponents or not hire professors with other views.


They say that the Muslims are rising up against Israel in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem, in outrage over IDF attacks in Gaza. The riots and attempted lynching are not spontaneous. They are organized. Included are Arab students at Israeli universities, who merely demonstrated, and Arabs in eastern Jerusalem who attempted to lynch municipal workers, blocking their car, throwing rocks through the windows, and beating the car with metal rods. Police fired at rioters' legs. A Jewish leader urged Jews not to give in and to continue to use all parts of the city (Arutz-7, 3/4/08).

There is no excuse for rioting. Nor have the Muslims a grievance over Israeli raids into Gaza. As the Israeli government states clearly, if Gazans didn't attack Israel, Israel wouldn't attack Gazans. I think that Israel should attack Gaza all out, ending potential war from there. What nerve, to bombard Israeli cities and then wax indignant when Israel seeks out the perpetrators and only them.

This is war not isolated incidents. I think the rioters are trying to kill and take over the country. Police should tell them to surrender or be shot dead. Police action being weak, the plea for Jews to frequent all parts of Jerusalem is humiliating.


Each paper's March 14 edition described the same news about Saddam from opposite perspectives. The news was that 600,000 documents captured from Saddam's government have been reviewed for his connection to terrorism. Saddam formed terrorist organizations and financed and armed terrorists, some connected then or later to al-Qaida but none at the time officially connected to al-Qaida, about which he was suspicious.

The Sun emphasized Saddam's anti-American terrorism. It concluded that the record disproves the notion that secularist Muslims would not cooperate with jihadists, and vindicates Pres. Bush's assault against Iraq.

The Times emphasized Saddam's lack of direct connection with al-Qaida. It concluded and emphasized that the record shows Bush unjustified for assaulting Iraq (A12 and p.1).

I agree with the Sun, but wouldn't expect you to make up your own mind without comparing both papers. I think that the Times misses the big picture, which is that of an evil axis ranged against civilization. This axis is loosely organized. Al-Qaida has been helping and taking over or getting allegiance pledged by other terrorist organizations and training people to form their own cells. It doesn't matter which member of the evil axis the US confronts, eventually we must confront all.

cdIt is like being pursued by a pack of a dozen wolves. You have a rifle. The Democrats would keep running. They might get caught. Pres. Bush fights. He has two questions. Which wolf should he shoot first and how many should he shoot? If he shoots one, the rest would keep coming. If he shoots the alpha male first, and then the next leaders, the pack may give up when a substantial portion of their number are removed. Pres. Bush warred first on Afghanistan for understandable reasons. Then he chose Iraq. Turns out, he would have been better advised to choose Iran and S. Arabia, before Iraq. The latter two countries are the inspiration for much international terrorism. His choice of Iraq would have been well advised if the US had sufficient military force and an appropriate strategic plan for using Iraq as a beachhead for invading the other two countries.

Congress, which became critical of him was of no help. The previous President had let our armed forces dwindle, and Bush did not enlarge them. The State Dept. and CIA are busy with turf wars, and had no strategic plan or insight. N. Korea is well armed. No doctrine was developed about what to do with Pakistan. US diplomacy was distracted and turned in the wrong direction by its obsessive anti-Zionism. The US could have gotten Israel to win an easy victory against the jihadists in the Territories, but instead tries to help the jihadists wrest the Territories from Israel. PM Olmert sabotaged potential victory in Lebanon.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Richard L. Benkin, March 21, 2008.

DHAKA (MARCH 18, 2008) At approximately 7:00pm, Dhaka time, members of Bangladesh's Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) stormed the office of anti-jihadist Muslim journalist, SALAH UDDIN SHOAIB CHOUDHURY. A para-military arm of the government, RAB is notorious for its crackdowns on dissidents and wholesale violations of human rights. They ordered all employees out of the newspaper and interrogated Shoaib, seizing his phones and not allowing him any communication with friends, family, or legal counsel. After more than an hour and a half, RAB claimed to find a controlled substance in Shoaib's desk –– an allegation that Shoaib's friends and associates claim is impossible. His brother Sohail claims that any evidence had to be planted. Shoaib was blindfolded and taken a RAB interrogation center in Dhaka where his captors verbally abused him for hours, repeatedly calling him a "Zionist spy and agent of the Jews." The verbal assault, which included numerous threats, continued for another three hours until someone RAB described as a "high government official" telephoned and ordered them to release him. When Shoaib asked about the contrived drug charge, he was told that they would not pursue it.

That order followed some immediate and direct action from several quarters. Upon receiving the news about his brother, Sohail contacted Dr. Richard Benkin of Chicago. After the two discussed strategy, Sohail called the US Embassy, and the matter was reported to the charge d'affairs. Benkin contacted the office of Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) who has been Shoaib's long time champion in Congress. Kirk's staff, led by Andria Hoffman, set up a command center in his office, while Benkin contacted several other supportive members of Congress and Shoaib's international human rights attorney Irwin Cotler. Benkin then called the Bangladeshi Embassy and demanded that Shoaib be released unharmed immediately or there would be consequences. Soon thereafter, the embassy received telephone calls from several Congressional offices including Kirk's and those of Rep.Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA), Rep. Steven Rothman (D-NJ), and others.

Though Shoaib was released unharmed, the action represents a serious escalation of the government's harassment of the courageous journalist who now counts supporters on every continent save Antarctica. People in RAB custody have been known to "disappear," and RAB does not carry out actions such as today's without serious consequences. The raid could have been in response to several failed attmepts on the part of the government and radical Islamists to re-incarcerate Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. And in my years of work on this case, I have learned that every government action is a probe of our resolve to continue the fight against injustice –– a resolve several government officials have told me we do not have. And so we MUST respond.


Make a clear and very loud protest. Let them know that the Bangladeshi government will be held responsible if anything happens to Shoaib. People already are calling for a boycott of all Bangladeshi products after today; and the government should know that. Let them know that they can't get away with this, that our resolve for Shoaib has not diminished on bit. Let them know that there will be hell to pay.

If you live outside the United States and need information about your country's Bangladesh Embassy, contact me.


If you live elsewhere, contact your representative in the legislature and urge him or her to take actoin. Bangladesh is still trying to convince us that it is a "moderate Muslim country," but it is clearly a patron of terror. The ONLY reason they maintain this admittedly baseless case against Shoaib –– and they have told me this –– is to placate radical Islamists.

Dr. Richard L. Benkin has led the campaign to defend the Bangladeshi newspaper columnist and publisher, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who was jailed for the "crime" of trying to go to a Writer's Conference in Israel. Contact him at drrbenkin@comcast.net or at 847-922-6426.

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 20, 2008.

This was written by Evelyn Gordon and it appeared yesterday in Jerusalem Post
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420731816&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

It is hard to decide which aspect of Mahmoud Abbas's recent "ethnic cleansing" accusation is more worrying: what it reveals about him, or what it reveals about the world's willingness to tolerate even the vilest and most obviously nonsensical slanders against Israel.

Addressing the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Dakar last Thursday, the Palestinian Authority chairman declared: "Our people in the city [of Jerusalem] are facing an ethnic cleansing campaign through a set of Israeli decisions such as imposing heavy taxes, banning construction and closing Palestinian institutions, in addition to separating the city from the West Bank by the racist separation wall."

If Jerusalem's Arabs are facing ethnic cleansing, then Israelis are surely the most incompetent ethnic cleansers in human history. After all, ethnic cleansing usually aims at removing an unwanted population and substituting your own nationals.

But according to data from the Central Bureau of Statistics and the Jerusalem Institute of Israel Studies, Jerusalem's Arab population skyrocketed 266 percent between 1967, when Israel annexed east Jerusalem, and 2006 (the last year for which figures are available). That is almost double the Jewish population's growth during those years (143 percent); consequently, the city's ratio of Jews to Arabs shrank from 74:26 in 1967 to 66:34 in 2006.

Even during the intifada, which prompted the fence and the closed institutions that Abbas decries, the Arab population continued ballooning: It rose from 208,700 at the end of 2000 to 252,400 at the end of 2006, an increase of 21 percent in six years, or 3.5 percent a year. Jerusalem's Jewish population grew by only 4.7 percent during those years, or less than 1 percent a year. In absolute terms, the Arab increase (43,700 people) was double the Jewish increase (21,100).

Nor was the Arab growth solely due to natural increase: Ziad al-Hamouri, who heads the Jerusalem Center for Economic Rights, estimates that some 30,000 Arabs have moved to Jerusalem since construction of the fence began; others put the figure even higher.

IF ABBAS is truly unaware of these very well-publicized facts, this casts doubt on his viability as a negotiating partner. Since any deal must be rooted in reality, it is hard to negotiate with someone who remains determinedly ignorant even about "core issues" such as Jerusalem. But more importantly, how can you trust the good faith of someone who has no qualms about accusing you of one of the most heinous crimes in the modern lexicon without even bothering to check his facts? Almost certainly, however, Abbas does know the facts. After all, both Palestinians and Israelis frequently cite east Jerusalem's Arab majority to support Palestinian claims to part of the city.

But in that case, the question becomes even more troubling –– because how can you trust the moderation, good faith and peaceful intentions of someone who has no qualms about publicly accusing you of such a heinous crime even knowing that it is false? Bluntly, this was nothing less than deliberate incitement against Israel, in a forum guaranteed to receive maximum coverage in the Arab world.

Nor was this a one-time aberration. Just last month, for instance, Abbas told the Jordanian daily Al Dustour: "At this time, I object to the armed struggle, since we are unable to conduct it; however, in future stages things may change." Yet if his only reason for opposing armed struggle is that he currently believes he cannot wage it successfully, that is hardly reassuring, as this reason would disappear following a peace agreement: With the IDF gone from the West Bank and Jordan border, Palestinians could easily import quantities of sophisticated arms and plan attacks unhindered.

THEN THERE was the PA's rejection in December of a French proposal, backed by senior UN officials, for a UN resolution mandating educational activities to support the peace process. The proposal would have amended an existing resolution that requires teaching about alleged Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, thereby fostering hatred rather than reconciliation. Yet Abbas evidently prefers fostering hatred.

It is hard to imagine anything more innocuous, or more vital to the success of the process, than peace education. If Abbas cannot even agree to that, one has to wonder about his commitment to peace.

There are numerous similar examples, such as his June 2006 charge that Israel was seeking to "eliminate the Palestinian people." Never mind that, by the PA's own figures, the Palestinian population of the territories has quadrupled under Israeli rule –– including a 34 percent increase in the past decade alone.

But perhaps even more worrying than Abbas's statements is the world's response. Not a single international leader bothered to condemn last week's ethnic cleansing accusation. Nor did anyone condemn his Al-Dustour remarks, his rejection of the peace education resolution, or any of his other less-than-moderate statements and actions.

Given the world's fixation with resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its reluctance to acknowledge that Abbas may be miscast as a peacemaker is understandable. Yet by tolerating such blatant incitement, the international community further undermines the prospects for peace.

First, such remarks scarcely encourage Israelis to believe that Abbas is acting in good faith, which is an obvious prerequisite for Israeli consent to any agreement. For that reason alone, the world should be interested in condemning such remarks.

Far more important, however, is the message this sends to Palestinians. If Abbas can hurl such vicious and patently false accusations at Israel without even a pro forma protest from world leaders, that tells Palestinians that willingness to live in peace with Israel is not necessary to retain international support. If the world has no objection to even the most vicious Palestinian incitement –– despite knowing that such incitement routinely leads to actual violence –– then it clearly cares nothing about peace; what it cares about is satisfying Palestinian demands.

That, in turn, encourages Palestinians to believe that eventually, the world will force Israel to accede to these demands even without peace –– thereby obviating any need to stop the violence or make the kind of concessions negotiated agreements always entail. And as long as they believe this, peace will remain a distant dream.

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Ruth and Nadia Matar, March 20, 2008.

Dear Friends,

Several events happened last week, all in the spirit of "And Mordechai did not kneel or bow down".

1) The protest to Jabbel-Mukhaber.

Hundreds of Jews joined the call of the bereaved families demanding that the house of the Arab terrorist who committed the massacre in Merkaz Harav be demolished. As we remember, the terrorist was an Israeli Arab from East Jerusalem. The house itself was not demolished but more important than the house, that protest started a new campaign against the "Fifth column" that lives among us, the Israeli Arabs, many of whom identified with what that terrorist did. More important than actually demolishing the house of that terrorist, we must economically demolish the livelihood of the entire family of that terrorist.

For those who do not know, the terrorist comes from a very wealthy family who owns a company of vans in Jabbel Mukhaber called "Hapenina". With those vans they drive Jewish children of Jerusalem to school every morning.

At the protest, a Jewish woman from Armon Hanatziv (the neighborhood next to Jabbel Mukhaber) came towards us and thanked us for protesting. She told us that just a few days before, the Arabs of Jabbel Mukhaber held a picnic on a hill in Armon Hanatziv celebrating the massacre of the yeshiva boys. "We, Jews of Armon Hanatziv, felt so angry and helpless" said this woman. "But now you came and expressed your anger. That gave me strength" she said. "Now I will organize the parents of our area and make sure that the Jerusalem municipality cancels its contract with that van company. I refuse to send my children to school on vans and buses that belong to the family of that Arab murderer. We must boycott all of their businesses" she told us.

For more details and pictures of the protest:

2) Tsvia Sariel, the 18 year old girl from Elon Moreh, was released yesterday after almost four months in jail. The judge found her innocent on all charges.

Women in Green put out a press release saying:

"Women in Green congratulates Tsvia on her release. Tsvia did not kneel nor bow down to the wicked authorities who, despite her being completely innocent, persecuted her and harassed her for almost four months in jail. Tzviya represents the wonderful youth that is loyal to the Land of Israel and that fears neither the internal enemy nor the external enemy, and that with G-d's help will soon activate the Jewish revolution that we are all anticipating in order to attain the turnabout in which, as we will read in the Book of Esther on Purim [this week], 'the Jews will rule over their enemies.'"

For details about Tsviya's case and a short videoclip:

There is no doubt that the public pressure in Israel and abroad greatly contributed to Tsviya being released.

Below is a letter written by Datya Itzhaki of Pidion Shvuyim Alert, the committee that organizes public pressure in case of persecution of Jews loyal to the Land and Torah of Israel. Contact them by email at pidionshvuim@yahoo.com

In a few days, after Purim, we will all need to activate the pressure once again, this time to try and prevent the Halamish brothers from going to jail. As you may recall, Itzik and Danny Halamish, two brothers living in Maaleh Rehavam, came to the help of a fellow Jew after he was being attacked by a mob of Arabs. Instead of putting the Arabs on trial, it was the Jews who have been put on trial, as usual, based on false charges and claims. They were accused and found guilty of firing in the air to scare off the Arab attackers. To make a long story short, all the appeals were rejected and Itzik and Danny are supposed to go to jail for eight months, starting in April. We will give you more details about the case in a few days and what we all can do to try to stop this grave travesty of justice.

Chag Purim Sameach and Shabbat Shalom,
Ruth and Nadia Matar

March 19, 2008
Pidion Shvuim Alert:
No. 4

After nearly four months in prison, Tzvia Sariel is found not guilty of assaulting an Arab.

Tzvia Sariel, the 18-year-old Jewish girl who spent four months in prison without formal charges, was freed by an Israeli judge on March 19. Judge Navah Bechor, who just two weeks ago sent Tzvia to another month in jail despite the recantation of the chief prosecution witness, acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence against the Jewish activist from Elon Moreh.

There is only one reason Tzvia was released, an assessment even acknowledged by Israel state radio, controlled by the Olmert government: massive Jewish pressure, particularly from abroad. Over the last five days, Tzvia was brought to court three times amid increasing outrage by Jews all over the world regarding her plight. Tzvia's release directly stems from your wonderful efforts.

We thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your phone calls to the Israel embassy, Congress and State Department. We KNOW that they made an immediate difference. The Olmert government wanted to make Tzvia an example for the tens of thousands of young Jews who don't want to see the destruction of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem. Tzvia was brave and we helped her stay brave.

Unfortunately, our work has just begun. There are plenty of others who are the victims of the Olmert policy to destroy Jewish communities. They have been charged and convicted on trumped-up offenses or on the basis of no evidence at all. They need our help and we will inform you about them over the next days. Tzvia was released in time for Purim, when tragedy turned into celebration. Let's keep up the momentum.

Purim Sameach,

With Love of Israel,

Datya Itzhaki

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 Crystal, March 20, 2008.

This was written by John Hansen and Kim Hundevadt for Jyllands-Posten, Grondalsvej, 3, 8260 Viby J, +45 87 38 38 38. Email: jp@jp.dk. This is an English translation.

(Photo: Morten Flarup)

Death threats against Danish cartoonists, burning embassies and more than 150 dead in violent demonstrations. Twelve drawings of the prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper came close to unleashing a clash between the Islamic world and Europe in February 2006. Two investigative journalists from daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which originally published the drawings, tell in their book "Provoen og Profeten" ('The Provocateur and the Prophet') the dramatic story behind the story. They also reveal who was actually calling the shots during the cartoon crisis. Here are excerpts from the book which was released in Denmark in May 2006.

ON A SUMMER evening in June 2005, the Danish children's book writer Kare Bluitgen was at a party with old friends from the political left wing in a villa in mundane Frederiksberg, a suburb of Copenhagen.

At the party, Kare Bluitgen met a journalist from the Danish news bureau, Ritzau. Over a beer, he told the journalist that he was about to write a children's book about the prophet Mohammed's life but had problems finding an artist willing to illustrate it. Three illustrators had already refused for fear of violent reprisals from Islamists.

The journalist sensed a good story and awhile later, he contacted the children's book author who in the meanwhile had found an artist. The artist however insisted on remaining anonymous out of concern for his own safety.

"I know it's ridiculous to submit to that kind of fanaticism, but I'm afraid of being recognized on the street and beaten up –– or something worse," the illustrator explained in a subsequent interview.

Ritzau's telegram was released to the Danish news desks on Friday, 16 September at 4am, "Danish artists fear criticizing Islam".

The illustrators' fear was connected among other things, to the murder of Dutch film director, Theo van Gogh, and to a violent attack on a lecturer from Copenhagen University, who had been assaulted after he read aloud to his students from the Koran.

The article led to an intense debate in the Danish media about self-censorship and the fear of confronting Islam. The chairman for a national authors' association warned against limitations on freedom of expression and a Christian newspaper encouraged illustrators to demonstrate civil courage: "Let your pen loose," the newspaper wrote in an editorial.

IN DUE COURSE this public debate was discussed at an editorial meeting at daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten, the largest circulation newspaper in Denmark, where a group of journalists on Monday, 16 September, talked about how the matter could be covered.

One of the journalists had an idea: "What if we write to all of the members of illustrators' union and ask if they will draw Mohammed?"

Some colleagues felt the idea was an original way to document whether there was a problem with self-censorship or not. Others felt that it would be an unnecessary offence to the religious convictions of Danish Muslims.

The idea was presented to one of the newspaper's editors-in-chief and to cultural editor Flemming Rose. The very same night, Rose wrote to the approximately 40 members of the illustrators' trade association, referred to the previous days' debate and concluded: 'Daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten takes the side of freedom of expression. For that reason, we would like to invite you to draw Mohammed as you see him.'

The association had 25 active members, three of whom were the newspaper's own illustrators. Twelve accepted the challenge –– each in turn producing a very different interpretation. A couple of the illustrators turned their sarcastic sting on Bluitgen himself, whom they suspected of initiating the matter as a PR stunt for his book. Another didn't even draw the prophet, but used a young schoolboy named Mohammed to write on a chalkboard: 'Jyllands-Posten's editors are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs.'

One of Jyllands-Posten's own illustrators, Kurt Westergaard, quickly focused his thoughts on the fact that the fundamentalist version of Islam fires the spiritual bonfire of suicide bombers, who blow themselves up in the name of Mohammed. He grew up in a fundamental Christian society in the 1940s, and true-believing Christians have often gagged on their early morning coffee when they have seen his drawings of Jesus in Jyllands-Posten. He drew the prophet with a bomb in his turban. In his mind, the drawing was not directed against Islam in general; it merely targeted the Islamic extremists who have taken their religion hostage in bloody terror actions.

IN THE FOLLOWING days, the newspaper's editors learned about other cases of cultural life censoring itself and an unwillingness to confront Islam: the Tate Museum in London removed a work by the artist John Latham out of fear of a Muslim backlash. A museum in Gothenburg, Sweden had done the same thing. The translator of a book by the Dutch-Somalian critic of Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, insisted on remaining anonymous. And a well-known Danish stand-up comedian said in an interview that he was afraid to perform provocative satire about Islam. The editorial staff also noted that a Danish imam, Mahmoud Fouad al-Barazi, who was closely connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest Islamic movement in the Middle East, demanded that Denmark's prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, insist that the press should not dishonour religions.

That helped solidify the foundations of his project, Flemming Rose felt. After serving his time as a correspondent in Moscow during communist rule, Rose has a strong hostility toward any limitations on free speech.

Editor-in-chief Carsten Juste was less convinced but chose not to stand in the way, because he found the drawings harmless –– totally in line with the Danish tradition for satire.

The 12 drawings were printed in Jyllands-Posten's culture section on 30 September 2005 accompanied by an article by Flemming Rose in which he explained the background of the cartoon series and added:

"Some Muslims reject modern, secular society. They make demands for special treatment when they insist on special consideration for their religious feelings. That stance is irreconcilable with a secular democracy and freedom of expression where you have to be ready to accept insults, mockery and ridicule. It's not always pleasant and nice to experience, and that doesn't mean religious principles should be made fun of at all costs, but those considerations are secondary in this context."

Expectations at Jyllands-Posten varied. Some predicted a hefty debate because Islamists in Denmark were about to receive an "electroshock treatment in democracy". Editor Juste and others did not feel the matter would have much significance.

The immediate reaction was also limited. Several Muslim storeowners refused to sell the newspaper, stating they felt the drawings were a deliberate provocation.

Outside the searchlight of the media, however, an intense discussion ensued in Muslim circles in Denmark. Only a few people had seen the newspaper and a good number of prominent Muslims did not feel it was worth the effort to protest –– either because they did not care about the drawings or because they feared that violent protests would give Danish Muslims negative publicity. The best known imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abu Laban of Palestine, who also has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, said in several confidential conversations that he was prepared to ignore the cartoons.

Other imams strongly disagreed. They felt the offence was so serious that an example had to be made. At the same time, they strongly criticised the Muslims who disagreed with them. The complaint was that they were disloyal and did not defend the prophet.

The most vocal advocates arguing for Danish Muslims to stand up in protest were associated with a mosque in Arhus administered by the fundamentalist organisation, Equality and Brotherhood. The group had been under the scrutiny of Danish media before for its connections to extremists, including a Danish prisoner at Guantanamo, Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane, as well as Abu Rached el-Halabi of Syria, whom Spanish police believed was connected to terror bombings in Madrid.

IN THE MOSQUE, five imams, including Raed Hlayhel, gathered to share their anger and to draw a battle plan. They had been angry with Jyllands-Posten in the past, because the paper had written critically about their activities. The newspaper had published a Friday prayer where Raed Hlayhel, a Palestinian trained in sharia law at the university in the Saudi Arabian city Medina, demanded that women should be covered from head to toe, also when they are together with other women and that 'women can be Satan's instruments against men.'

Raed Hlayhel won the internal power struggle to decide strategy. He organised an emergency meeting in Copenhagen for 10 Islamic organisations, two days after the drawings were published. At the meeting, he was elected as chairman of the committee which was to defend the prophet's honour, and participants agreed to a battle plan with a total of 19 points.

The most important points included imams and their supporters complaining to the Danish government, petitioning Muslim embassies in Denmark to take up the case, writing to Islamic clerics around the world, contacting the influential Al-Azhar University in Cairo and religious leaders in Mecca and asking major media in the Middle East, including the satellite station Al Jazeera, to cover the infamous drawings.

At the same time, they would carpet bomb the newspaper with text messages, emails and telephone calls, collect signatures in mosques, organise mass protests in Copenhagen and investigate the possibility of suing the newspaper. They also talked more informally about getting the Islamic world to mount a boycott of Danish products.

The imams quickly began implementing the plan and organising what would become the most effective Muslim protest ever in Denmark.

"It's not because we are threatening anyone, but when you have seen what happened in the Netherlands and still print the caricatures, then it's just a dumb thing to do," said Raed Hlayhel with reference to the murder of Theo van Gogh.

Other threats were less veiled. The first came from a 17-year-old Muslim who phoned the newspaper and said that he had the names and addresses of all of the illustrators and that the first one would die within 14 days. He was arrested two days later. The week after, serious threats were made against two of the illustrators, leading police to advise them to go underground.

DURING THESE FIRST two weeks, the case was largely ignored by the Danish media. The major breakthrough came at a demonstration at Copenhagen's central Town Hall Square which gathered about 3000 participants for Muslims' Friday night prayer on 14 October. It showed that the imams were now able to mobilise Muslims in a broad protest. The imams who originally hesitated were forced to join the campaign to maintain their position of power.

A number of Muslims stated in interviews that they were not especially offended by the blasphemic content of the drawings, but they felt that their culture and religion generally was not respected in Denmark and the drawings were a symbolic case which they could rally around.

When imams on 24 October took status of the campaign in an email to active members, they noted that all 19 point were largely fulfilled. They only lacked a protest demonstration at Town Hall Square to burn their passports.

The imams' pressure on Muslim ambassadors asking them to intervene against "the horrible crime" was especially a success. The Egyptian ambassador, Mona Omar Attia, was particularly receptive. She took the initiative to draft a letter to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen in which the ambassadors lamented "the ongoing smear campaign" against Islam and Muslims in Denmark.

They asked the government to "take action against the responsible parties based on the law of the country" and "to take the necessary steps" to avoid defamation of Islam, and they asked for a prompt meeting due to the case's "sensitive nature."

In his reply, PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen explained the principles behind freedom of expression and the blasphemy law in Denmark, but did not comment on the ambassadors' request for a meeting because he felt that their demands to take action against the press provided the wrong basis for a discussion.

That created intense embitterment among the ambassadors and their governments in the Islamic world and it was later a point of criticism against the Danish prime minister that he could possibly have avoided the ensuing conflict if he had listened more to their protests. Others praised Rasmussen for not cowing under to "totalitarian regimes" in the Middle East.

EGYPT REACTED particularly strongly to the prime minister's answer. The Egyptians were already irate, because they felt Fogh Rasmussen had overplayed his role as a close ally of the US and because during a visit in Spring 2005, he had asked to meet with the Egyptian opposition. From the Cairo perspective, it appeared as if the Danes wanted to teach the Egyptians about democracy. That was not popular in Hosni Mubarak's regime. The case about the drawings could therefore be used to send a reply message: We can be difficult too. Don't push us around.

The Egyptian government had another motive: During an election in November 2005, it was hard-pressed by Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood, and it had an acute need to profile itself as sympathetic to religious points of view. With support from state-controlled media, the Egyptians succeeded in November and December to make the Danish newspaper's offence a popular cause and to portray the government as a watchdog of Islam.

The foreign minister of Egypt, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, attempted at the same to use his influence to bring the case up an international level. He succeeded in persuading both the UN as well as the Arab League and The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to become involved.

"The aim is that this would lead to apology, an end to such acts and a stimulus to Europe to correct its approaches," Gheit told Reuters on 15 November.

OIC and the Arab League had a clear agenda: The two organisations had worked for years for an international prohibition against offending religions in general and Islam in particular. They sought to achieve this through, among other things, UN resolutions –– resolutions which EU countries have consistently opposed, because they feel it would limit free speech.

The version of free speech, which OIC's member nations sought passed, can be found in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights which was accepted in 1990: "Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah." The goal was that Islamic law should define the limits of free expression.

Seen through the eyes of the OIC, a widespread wave of protests about the Mohammed drawings could be used to put pressure on EU countries to make them accept a resolution and a tightening of the European blasphemy law.

That was exactly what happened when, during Spring 2006, OIC came with more demands for legal censure:

"The situation is so critical that without a legal obligation, we will not be able to handle the crisis. We cannot be satisfied with casual declarations," said OIC's secretary general, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.

A European prohibition against violations of Islam's holy symbols had become the price for making peace.

BACK IN AUTUMN 2005, the Egyptian Embassy in Copenhagen entered an alliance with Raed Hlayhel, Ahmed Abu Laban and the other imams who managed the protests in Denmark.

The ambassador helped the imams by arranging delegation trips to Egypt, Lebanon and Syria where the imams received an audience with influential politicians and religious leaders as well as prominent media.

In their luggage, the imams had a stack of folders which documented their perceived violation, but they did not limit themselves to only showing the drawings printed in Jyllands-Posten. They also showed a number of graphic pictures which apparently were sent anonymously to Danish Muslims: The prophet as a paedophilic, horned devil. The prophet wearing a pig's snout and ears. And the prophet having sexual intercourse with a dog.

A number of Middle Eastern media did not distinguish between the two categories of pictures. They simply reported that Danish newspapers had represented Mohammed as a pig. And a great deal of misinformation appeared in the aftermath of the delegations –– for example, that there were 120 drawings and that the Danish government was behind them. Regardless of who is ultimately responsible for these errors, or if they were intentional or not, there is no doubt that the imams' trips helped to fan the flames in the Middle East.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Gheit also ensured that the controversial folder in December was distributed at OIC's summit in Mecca, where the drawings were indirectly condemned in a resolution, and where state and government leaders discussed the case busily in corridors. The fuse on the explosion which would come in January was lit.

The Danish government was aware that it confronted an alliance of powerful opponents –– from the Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood to the secular, but totalitarian regimes in the Middle East. But both the government and Jyllands-Posten also came under growing pressure at home in Denmark.

In the first weeks, politicians and opinion makers had been largely in agreement about a flat-out denial of the Muslim demand that Jyllands-Posten should apologise and the government should step in to put the newspaper in its place. A survey in November also showed that 57 percent of Danes felt that it was 'right' to print the drawings while 31 percent felt it was 'wrong'.

But the criticism of Jyllands-Posten gradually became more and more confrontational. The newspaper was accused for example, of deliberately targeting and ridiculing Muslims and that the publication of the drawings was a racist action.

A number of left-wing intellectuals had originally defended the newspaper's right to print the drawings, but support gradually dissipated as the case was used for political attacks on liberal prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who maintained his position that respect for people's religious beliefs should not lead to a situation in which 'we place limits on the press's ability for criticism, humour and satire.'

IN THE BEGINNING of January, it appeared as if the crisis was about to blow over. Signs of reconciliation came from Egypt's government which after the election did not have the same need to profile itself.

But that was just the calm before the storm. Other actors had a strong interest in awakening a larger protest against the drawings.

The state controlled imams in Saudi Arabia came first. On 10 January, in the holy city of Mecca, they celebrated the Eid al-Adha, which commemorates the end of the annual pilgrimage. Imam Abdul Rahman Alsidis had the world's largest Muslim audience at his disposal during his sermon: Two million listened to him in Mecca. Another 100 million could follow along on direct TV transmissions on Arabic satellite stations.

They heard Abdul Rahman Alsidis's speech that Islam and the prophet were under attack in the media. Without naming either Denmark or Jyllands-Posten, he encouraged Muslims to give resistance to what he called "a deliberate campaign against the prophet Mohammed." Observers have several interpretations of the Saudi motives: Fundamentalists, with Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as the most prominent, continually criticise the dominant ruling royal family for corruption and decadence and an un-Islamic lifestyle. For that reason the regime could use a "harmless" case such as the Danish Mohammed drawings to profile itself as a true defender of the prophet –– and at the same time move attention away from the fact that crowd security during the annual pilgrimage had once again been insufficient: 362 pilgrims had lost their lives during an accident a few days before.

Saudi Arabia allowed demonstrations in the country's media, in the mosques where they were a favourite subject during Friday prayers, and in supermarkets where there was support for a significant ban against Danish products.

At the same time a 79-year-old preacher from Qatar stepped onto the scene: The Egyptian born Yusuf al-Qaradawi is one of the world's most influential religious leaders. As a young person he was active in the Muslim Brotherhood's struggle against the former royalty in Egypt and he was in jail four times before he moved to Qatar. Today he is considered by many as the Brotherhood's unofficial spiritual leader.

From a base in Qatar he has secured a number of important channels of influence on Muslims both in Islamic countries and in Europe: He has his own programme at Al Jazeera and his own news channel on the internet, IslamOnline. And he has founded two organisations which he fronts himself: the European Council for Fatwa and Research along with the International Union of Muslim Scholars.

The latter organisation provided the springboard for Yusuf al-Qaradawi's fight against the Mohammed drawings.

In a declaration on Saturday, 21 January, he threatened to encourage all of the world's Muslims to boycott Denmark and Norway –– unless the two countries' governments "resolutely" took action against the media's offence to the prophet. Norway was included in the threat, because a small Christian newspaper, Magazinet, had re-printed Jyllands-Posten's page of cartoons, and cultural editor Flemming Rose's text in the beginning of January. The paper had also included its own articles describing how Norwegian illustrators submit to self-censorship to avoid awakening Muslims' anger.

The declaration was also meant as a final warning that al-Qaradawi would open the floodgates if his demands to control the media were not met.

WHEN EU'S FOREIGN ministers met in Brussels on 30 January, support for Denmark was lukewarm. Several foreign ministers suggested that Denmark had neglected the chance to resolve the conflict on its own. Luxembourg's foreign minister, Jean Asselborn, said flat out that he considered the case 'more of a Danish than a European problem.' Austria's foreign minister, Ursula Plassnik, criticised the Mohammed drawings when she said in a speech that 'words and actions that disparage a religion in an offensive manner are to be condemned.' A handful of EU Commissioners also distanced themselves the same week.

The US did not form a common front with Denmark either. In the course of a day, three different spokespeople for the US State Department used words such as 'unacceptable', 'offensive', and 'insulting'. One of them, Kurtis Cooper, went so far that Reuters wired a story under the headline: 'US backs Muslims in cartoon dispute.' That Denmark stood relatively alone was a major reason that the storm about the prophet drawings was allowed to grow, The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Ekrima Sabri, stated in an interview: 'Denmark is an easy target. A little country, which does not have significant value for the Arab countries. That's why nobody is concerned the protests continue,' said the mufti. It was in this climate that Yusuf al-Qaradawi once again stepped forward and incited Muslims around the world to battle:

"Let us make Friday, February 3, a day for worldwide Muslim protests over the insulting campaigns against Allah and His Prophet, Mohammed (peace be upon him)," the challenge sounded, once again broadcast through the International Union for Muslim Scholars.

Al-Qaradawi's news service IslamOnline dubbed Friday, 3 February a 'day of anger'.

And al-Qaradawi's challenge was heard: the Mohammed drawings were the subject of Friday prayer around the world from the major cities of Europe such as Lyon and London to Muslim countries such as Sudan, Pakistan and Indonesia. In at least 13 countries, the Friday prayer was followed by demonstrations against the drawings. Imams encouraged the world's faithful Muslims to express their anger through a boycott of the countries which published the drawings.

It was also clear in the circulating rhetoric, especially that of Friday prayers, that many considered "the day of anger" to be a chance to gather and establish the umma –– the Islamic religious nation which in principle includes all of the world's Muslims regardless of their nationality and Islamic faith. The cartoons provided the one common cause, the one point which all Muslims could meet in agreement and feel they were Muslims rather than shias or sunnis or citizens of Indonesia, Turkey or France: Defence for the prophet!

Yusuf al-Qaradawi said it himself in his Friday prayer in Qatar: "The whole nation must be angry and rise up to show their anger?Anger is a must. We are not a nation of donkeys. We are a nation of lions."

An imam in Riyadh, Sheikh Badr bin Nader al-Mashari, also addressed the world's Muslims in a speech which was distributed through Islamic internet pages:

"Brothers, it's war against Islam?.., grab your swords?To the billion Muslims: Where are your arms? Your enemies have trampled on the prophet. Rise up!"

THE RHETORIC was even more violent during Friday night prayers and demonstrations in, among other places, Lebanon and London. In Indonesian capital Jakarta, demonstrators attacked the Danish Embassy for the first time on Friday.

The fire was lit and the flames were fanned once again by Danish imams: The previous Monday, Mahmoud Fouad al-Barazi, who had demanded more Islam-friendly media back in September 2005, wrongly told tv station Al Jazeera that extremist Danes planned to burn the Koran in the central Town Hall Square in Copenhagen.

More moderate imams had tried to tone down the rumours during the week by emphasising in Arab media that these were only rumours which should not be listened to.

But Saturday morning, 4 February –– immediately following "the day of anger" –– the story popped up again –– this time on the Islamic internet media, IslamOnline, which was controlled by al-Qaradawi.

Imam Raed Hlayhel from Arhus, who took the initiative for protests and represented the most hard-line strategy, reported that Danish racists that same afternoon would burn the Koran during a demonstration in the city of Hillerod north of Copenhagen.

"Hell will break loose, if these extremists burn the Koran," said Raed Hlayhel. The same Saturday, a demonstration in Syria's capital Damascus ended with Denmark's and Norway's embassies being attacked and set on fire. Eyewitnesses reported afterward that text messages sent by mobile phone about planned Koran burnings in Denmark were the catalyst that sent the relatively peaceful demonstration out of control.

The day after, Sunday, 5 February, demonstrators set fire to Denmark's embassy building in Beirut, Lebanon. Monday, the Danish missions in Iran's capital Teheran were attacked with fire bombs. From that moment, the protests spread like ripples around the world. Threats and attacks were also targeted against other European countries as raging demonstrators heard about French and German newspapers that had chosen to reprint Jyllands-Posten's drawings or had printed completely new drawings of their own in the beginning of February.

These demonstrations and conflicts which sprung out of protests against the Mohammed drawings ended up taking the lives of 150 people.

Denmark was forced to withdraw its diplomats from five countries for fear of attack. Danish citizens evacuated countries such as Indonesia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria and the Palestinian Self-Rule Area, because threats to their lives were made.

IN THE COURSE of March and April, the demonstrations stopped, diplomats returned home to their posts, and the boycott against Danish products eased off.

Conditions became more ordinary –– just not for the 12 illustrators. Their daily routine has not returned to normal.

They continue to live under police protection and are forced to maintain their anonymity which makes it difficult for some of them to maintain a livelihood. Danish police are investigating more than 150 death threats against them. And the threats from foreign extremists appear to have no end.

An the end of April, Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden demanded the illustrators extradited so he could try them in front of an Islamic court. And there have been numerous reports in the international press that commandos are on their way from Afghanistan or Pakistan to make an end to the illustrators' lives. The 12 illustrators are clearly the most apparent losers in the struggle of values which is the essence of the cartoon battle. A struggle with strong forces on both sides of the front: Liberal, Western secularism on one side and dogmatic Islamism on the other.

The conflict has shown that a true compromise cannot be found between Islamists' demands that the prophet must never be offended, and a Western tradition that no religious dogmas can avoid criticism. The standoff is an either-or scenario.

The cartoon crisis is ultimately a political battle. And it ended with a three-quarters loss to Islamists: They did not have their demands for an unconditional apology fulfilled, nor did they secure a guarantee for rules prohibiting the offence of Islamic symbols in future.

But they also achieved a quarter victory: All of those who do not have a death wish will tread extra carefully in future when they approach a sensitive subject such as Islam, because they have seen how violently a situation can develop.

That was only the first round, however. Similar battles about values will come in future years. They might not develop so violently. But they have the potential to develop even more explosively.

Crystal is moderator of EUROPEANS_WHO_SUPPORT_ISRAEL@yahoogroups.com. Contact her at k_hallal@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, March 20, 2008.

The Olmert government has done everything possible to avoid defending Israel's citizens from countless, ceaseless rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza, the new Global Muslim Terror Base. What are the people to do when their leaders makes self-serving speeches with promises they do not intend to keep, while their enemies pledge and implementing Genocide.

It has long been determined by the Israeli military that only by pushing Gaza Terrorists back further than the range of its Kassam Rockets and Katyusha Missiles can they protect the people. Therefore, it is clear that Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, President Shimon Peres, Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are the guilty parties.

In addition, reports coming in to the effect that Olmert and gang just drastically cut the budget for defensive equipment, fencing, sensors, cameras, etc., for the settlements in Judea and Samaria.

They are making Israeli citizens vulnerable to death, being maimed and psychological trauma to men, women and children from the blasts of ceaseless Terror and bullets of unending War. These so-called leaders have, with malice aforethought, become de-facto collaborators with pledged enemies.

Worse yet, much of their incompetent inaction comes at the behest of the Bush-Rice regime –– thus making it treason during Israel's ongoing war to defend herself against its dedicated Muslim Arab adversaries.

Olmert, Peres, Livni and Barak should long ago have been brought up on charges of being a virtual Fifth Column. Moreover, knowing they had already exposed Israelis to death by refusing to use the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) to stop the Missiles, mostly at the behest of the Bush and Rice regime, they have knowingly engaged in treason.

The minimum penalty, if any or all of them are indicted, tried and found guilty would be life in prison. The maximum penalty should be death by hanging as traitors and co-conspirators to the murder of their own people.

I would add that –– having avoided and denied the Defense of the Nation of Israel against either a saturation missile attack which could come with chemicals, biological and/or nuclear warheads –– the leaders of the radical Left in Israel, once judged guilty of crimes against the Jewish people, should be sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment by order of a legally constituted Peoples' Court –– should any of the above occur.

These so-called "leaders" have shown themselves to be a clear and present danger to the entire Jewish nation and world Jewry, by extension of dangerous, murderous anti-Semitism as Israel is perceived to be weakened.

Due to the inaction of these so-called "leaders" –– in collusion with the Terrorist Muslim Arab enemies have already sealed the earthly fates of those already dead and maimed as well as those yet to be murdered.

When has Israel had such an incompetent, evil government of sheer traitors?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Resa Kirkland, March 20, 2008.

This is a news item from Arutz-Sheva cited in the New Media Journal

(Israel National News) –– A 25-year-old Israeli rabbi from Kfar Chabad, was attacked by a group of Arab men in Brooklyn, New York City, Tuesday evening. An 18-year-old Arab man grabbed the yarmulka (kippa) off Rabbi Oriah Ohana's head at the 4th Avenue and 9th Street train station in the Park Slope section of Brooklyn, while his friends kicked and punched the victim and screamed "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic: Allah is Great). Rabbi Ohana chased the man who grabbed the yarmulka. The attacker ran out of the subway station and was hit by a passing car. The attacker's friends then beat the rabbi, claiming he was the cause of their friend's misfortune. They escaped before police arrived –– abandoning their friend, whose broken legs precluded his escape. Police of the NYPD's 78th Precinct are investigating the attack. According to Vos is Neias –– a NY-area based Jewish news site –– Police arrested the man hit by the car and requested an ambulance, but are "trying to brush off the crime as just teenagers who don't know what 'Allahu Akbar' means." That Arabic declaration, meaning "Allah is great," is often chanted by Muslims before or during terrorist attacks. It is also declared five times daily from muezzin as a call to prayer. Park Slope is considered a safe and well-to-do neighborhood. It has become home to many Jews.

Anyone hear about this in an American newspaper??? More of the wonderful fruits of unreflective, indiscriminate Muslim immigration into the U.S.

From "Israeli attacked by Arab youth in NY" by Michal Lando
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420731918&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

The crime is being investigated as aggravated harassment and a possible bias crime according to a New York Police Department spokeswoman. "I am almost sure it will be charged as a hate crime," said the spokeswoman.

Almost sure?

All right. So a Qur'an in a toilet is immediately charged as a hate crime, but kicking and punching a rabbi in the face while screaming "Allahu akbar" is only a possible hate crime.

Ohana said one police officer brushed the incident off as a case of a teenager who "doesn't know what 'Allah akbar' means.

Yes, that's it, all right.

Islam is a religion of peace! Let us march forward together into the glorious future, comrades!

Resa Kirkland ia a columnist/writer/speaker/military historian/the anti-feminist! Contact her by email at resalaru@gmail.com or visit her website: www.warchick.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, March 20, 2008.

This was written by Michael Cameron, an in-house lawyer for The New York Post and member of the Committee on Communications & Media Law of the New York City Bar. The Committee recently issued a discussion paper in support of the Libel Terrorism Protection Act.

As "libel tourism" burgeons in Britain, the State of New York is set to protect its writers and journalists from such action via the Libel Terrorism Protection Act. Michael Cameron reports from the Big Apple on what this means for free speech and America's "war on terror"

New York's independent journalists and freelance writers stand to benefit from a new state law that protects them from liability for defamation judgments awarded overseas.

Angered by judicial decisions in London in recent years, the New York State Assembly is pushing through new legislation to stem the flow of "libel tourists" across the Atlantic.

The Libel Terrorism Protection Act received unanimous endorsement in the New York Senate last month and, gubernatorial scandals notwithstanding, is likely to be passed in the Assembly in the coming weeks.

The bill is the legislature's response to a decision in the New York Court of Appeals in December concerning the long-running defamation case between New York-based author, Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld and a Saudi businessman, Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz.

Ehrenfeld, the author of the book Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed And How to Stop it, was the subject of a default judgment by Justice Eady in the High Court of Justice in London in July 2005.

Her book alleges that Bin Mahfouz and his family were among the main sponsors of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations and channeled money to charities acting as fronts to Al Qaeda. Bin Mahfouz denies any link to terrorism.

While the book was published in the US, 23 copies made their way to Britain, purchased on the internet. In addition, the first chapter of the book could also be downloaded from an American website.

The wealthy Saudi businessman chose London to bring the action against Ehrenfeld and not the USA, where it was published, thereby denying the defendant, a US citizen, the protections of the First Amendment.

Rather than subject herself to the English courts, Ehrenfeld, who has no assets in the UK, decided to stay at home and not answer the claim.

In her absence, Justice Eady (pic) awarded judgment to Bin Mahfouz and ordered that Ehrenfeld apologise and pay him damages, reported at the time as US$225,000. Ehrenfeld has ignored the order and the Sheikh has made no attempt to enforce the decision in the USA.

As a result of the English court's decision, Dr Ehrenfeld, who has traveled often to London in the past, is now effectively barred from any future travel to the UK, lest she is met with an arrest warrant at the airport.

"I can't go there any more because my freedom is important to me," Dr Ehrenfeld said in an interview with the Gazette of Law and Journalism.

"Justice Eady's ruling hinders my ability to conduct research in the UK, thus adversely affecting my work and income."

With the support of local media lawyers, Dr Ehrenfeld decided to take a proactive approach to the English judgment by bringing her own action against Bin Mahfouz in a Manhattan court, seeking a declaratory judgment that Judge Eady's decision should be declared void as it was antithetical to the free speech protections afforded by the US Constitution.

While apparently sympathetic to the cause, the New York Court of Appeals ultimately found that the state's "long-arm" statute did not cover the absent defendant in this case as Bin Mahfouz was not transacting business in the state.

The new bill would amend the statute, section 302 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), effectively granting courts jurisdiction over a foreign libel plaintiff who wins a foreign defamation judgment when the author or publisher (not the complainant) is adjudged to have sufficient ties to the state. The current law requires both parties to have connection with New York State.

"Why should American writers be silenced because foreign laws do not allow free reporting?" Dr Ehrenfeld said this week.

For Assemblyman Rory Lancman, of the Twenty-Fifth District in New York City, there is an inexorable link between the fight against global terrorism and those legal systems which "enable" supporters of terrorism in the defamation courts.

"The information they [authors, journalists] unearth informs not just the general public, but policymakers who must make choices about strategies and tactics, resources and priorities, allies and adversaries, in how to best fight this war. Without their work, we are all merely groping around in the dark," Assemblyman Lancman recently wrote on the website www.humanevents.com.

"The terrorists and their enablers know this. That is why American journalists and authors who relentlessly and doggedly pursue the truth about terrorism networks are being met with a barrage of libel lawsuits in kangaroo courts on phony-baloney libel charges in overseas jurisdictions who don't share our belief in freedom of speech or a free press. England seems to be the enablers' forum..."

In 2007 English publishing house Sweet and Maxwell reported that "libel tourism" actions by non-resident businessmen from the Gulf states amounted to 13 per cent of all defamation cases in England, a tripling of the number from the year before.

Bin Mahfouz (pic) has been involved in a number of these cases. In July 2007 Cambridge University Press chose to pulp its book Alms for Jihad rather than defend itself against the alleged defamation of the Mahfouz family.

"Most American publishers today refuse to publish anything on terrorism, terror financing and certainly work that implicates any Saudi or other Gulf state individuals or institutions," said Dr Ehrenfeld.

"Apparently, economic considerations won over their supposed commitment to the reading public –– expose the truth. Instead, all retracted, and most apologized and paid fines. I alone refused to acknowledge the British court and didn't apologise."

Despite its promise, the new law of libel terrorism does not quite represent "mission accomplished" for those American media companies with global reach.

For one, it only applies to defendants based in New York State. Any media entity with global reach can still be dragged into court in any country around the world where they have business interests, to face local law.

The new law will protect individual authors and smaller publishing houses based in New York State from exposure to foreign jurisdictions.

Jason Criss, an associate with Covington and Burling in New York City, represented media companies as amici in the Ehrenfeld case.

He said the new law represents an important step in the US media's attempts to counter the effects of libel tourism upon American writers and journalists.

"I think one shouldn't underestimate the power of symbolic actions or declaratory judgment," Criss told the Gazette.

"Sheikh Bin Mahfouz was never interested in enforcing the judgment [against Ehrenfeld]. He's a multi-millionaire. It wouldn't be worth his while.

This gives American authors the ability to get a declaratory judgment in a US court. I think that declaration can be a pretty powerful counter-balance."

YOU TUBE: "The Libel Tourist"
"Watch how Saudi petrodollars have cowed, silenced, and almost broken freedom of speech in the West.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWq5QsZLCrg and www.acdemocracy.org

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Menachem Kovacs, March 20, 2008.

Dear Friends,

I wanted to let you all know that my first book was published Monday by Gefen Publishers. The book, Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad, is a collection of my Jerusalem Post columns from the last five years. R. James Woolsey, the former Director of Central Intelligence was kind enough to write the book's introduction.

The book is being shipped to the US for sales now. It is expected to arrive next month.

If you are a journalist and are interested in receiving a reviewer's copy of the book to review for your publication, let me know. Also, if you you are interested in inviting me to your community for a lecture/book signing, please contact me and we can try to arrange it.

All the best and looking forward to being in touch!
Caroline Glick

The Shackled Warrior
by Caroline Glick

"In eloquent and passionate prose, Caroline Glick examines some of the most important and troubling issues facing Israel and the world. Her message is clear and coherent: Islamic fundamentalism is the greatest challenge facing the West today."
Benjamin Netanyahu
Former Minister of Finance and Former Prime Minister of Israel

"In a world of self-deception and the desire to find false comfort by escaping the challenges facing the free world and Israel, it is important to hear the sober voice of Caroline Glick which reminds us that the real answers to building a secure world are based on values and not in immediate political gratification."
Natan Sharansky
Distinguished Senior Fellow, the Shalem Center

ISBN: 978-9652294159
Release Date: 15 April 2008
Hardback * 434 pages *
Price: $29.95

Rabbi Menachem Kovacs is Director of the Jewish Roots Center of Baltimore, an education and research center on Torah and social science topics. He is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Montgomery College in Maryland.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 20, 2008.


The worse the Muslim military threat, the more threatening Israeli government rhetoric is. Israel has been threatening a major offensive into Gaza for months. It says it expects the P.A. to stop the terrorism and arms build-up, it is running out of patience, the Army is free to operate against Hamas, the time of the offensive is coming, it can't hold back much longer. Then it sends Gaza food and medicine, boasts of restraint, and works for a ceasefire that ensures a Hamas military build-up and greater future Israeli casualties. Meanwhile the hostile world would praise the government and the government would not as likely be ousted during a temporary truce.

The NY Times headline was that an Israeli raid jeopardized that (counter-productive) ceasefire. Never mind that the raid was in Judea-Samaria and the ceasefire was to be in Gaza. Never mind that the men attacked were wanted terrorists carrying weapons. Why doesn't the Times headline warn that continued Muslim terrorism discourages ceasefire? Why is it always Israel's fault for defending itself, and not the terrorists for attacking it? Why doesn't the Times criticize the purportedly moderate Abbas for failing to eradicate the terrorists and eradicate his media's promotion of terrorism? Why doesn't the newspaper link the 17-year-old maiden caught attempting terrorism with the terrorist organizations she consulted about it because she hates Jews and with Abbas' media portrayal of the Jews as hate worthy? Because if the Times did, readers would realize that Abbas is not moderate.


A columnist noticed a discouraged attitude by NY State Controller Andre Cuomo, presumably an aspirant for the governorship. In the journalist's opinion, it would be a daunting challenge for Mr. Cuomo to compete in the next Democratic gubernatorial primary against the non-elected Gov. Paterson, the state's first black governor who probably wants to become its first elected black governor.

Does this indicate that our elections are more racist than democratic, now? We can't have a full choice, because blacks must be given preference? Is Cuomo expected to withhold his potential talent as a governor, because the blacks would vote for his black opponent extremely disproportionately and probably would condemn any white who advances his own bid instead of acquiescing to "theirs?"

This is real racism. It is behind the narrow margin of victory in certain states attained by Sen. Obama, as exit polls show. It also is behind the firing of a Clinton campaign aide for merely complaining about it, though the evidence supported her complaint. She was not allowed to complain about black racism prompting voters.

If Obama had a program that catered to declared needs of blacks, black support for him could be justified. People might bring up the argument, which I never accepted, that because blacks were discriminated against earlier, later generations are obliged not to help them qualify themselves better, but are obliged to push them to the front of the line whether they are qualified or not. Blacks at the level of US Senators and law professors, such as Obama, are not in need of compensatory election.

Discrimination was wrong when whites did it, and it is wrong when blacks do it. What's wrong is the discrimination, not the races discriminated for and against. We are supposed to have equal rights.


They used to call Arafat "moderate," because he made peace agreements, though he broke them. His PLO in Lebanon forcibly drained the blood out of hospital patients, to provide transfusions for wounded terrorists. China takes the organs out of political dissidents and sells them for transplants.

But the world hates the US, for which my friends blame Pres. Bush. Bombed for years, we did nothing. Bush saw a broader enemy than did my friends.


UNO Secretary-Gen. Ban once seemed decent. He recognized the evil of terrorism and the wrongfulness of blaming Israel for defending itself. Dependent upon approval from evil members, however, he switched to appeasement.

Attending the Organization of Islamic Conference meeting of about 50 Muslim states, he denounced Israeli counter-attacks on Gaza as disproportionately harming civilians. He also said that Hamas must stop bombarding Israel.

It is futile to ask Hamas to desist from war crimes, its military methodology. It is just lip service to even-handedness. It insults our intelligence.

Since Hamas won't desist, it must be made to. Sec. Ban has offered no program for doing that. None of Israel's critics have. Some of them pretend to. They suggest that Israel negotiate sovereignty over the P.A. with Abbas. That's even more of an insult. First, since Abbas has no control over Gaza, an agreement with him could not stop the rockets. Second, since Abbas admittedly favors terrorism when he can get away with it, giving him sovereignty would extend terrorism. Apparently most of us don't have the intelligence to be insulted. At least not our leaders nor the NY Times.

That leaves us with Israeli counter-terrorism. Again, the UNO and Israel's other critics of its efforts, who call it disproportionate, do not suggest alternative methods to adequately defend it. They should put up or shut up. Instead, they denounce every method Israel devises. They do it in the name of international law. But what is international law on "disproportionate?" The rule is that one side should try not to kill many civilians in proportion to soldiers or to the military objective. That rule is forfeited by the side that fights in civilian areas; it becomes responsible for deaths of its civilian. Israel kills more soldiers than civilians, and the number of slain civilians is very few compared with the population at risk. Why doesn't the UNO denounce Hamas for its war crime of endangering civilians, as by paying children to retrieve rocket launchers for reloading? The answer is that the UNO postures and propagandizes, but doesn't make peace.


PM Olmert had heralded the offensive into Gaza as the one to stop the rockets. It was launched in his customary haste, unrelated to strategic objectives. The small forces and limited area he allotted could not accomplish much nor for long. Olmert was grandstanding. His bombing of empty buildings demonstrates that he has not learned the lessons of the Lebanon war.

Pres. Bush and Sec. Rice held a press conference at which they demanded that Israel stand down and negotiate with Abbas. Israel did. "For their part, Abbas and his Fatah underlings have been outspoken in their support for Hamas's missile and rocket offensive against Israel. Sunday they organized joint Fatah-Hamas rallies in Hebron and Ramallah, where rioters called for Israel's destruction, burned Israeli and American flags and then attacked IDF patrols and the security fence." It is mistaken to suppose that Abbas would fight Hamas and change Muslim policy towards Israel for the better. Negotiating sovereignty (even if Israel didn't make dangerous concessions) would set up a state to protect and foment terrorism against Israel. Reliance upon Abbas has become idiotic. Nor would outside forces defend Israel, as we saw in Lebanon.

Israel has allowed Iran to train and arm militias sufficiently to break through the Egyptian border and push the Egyptian troops away. The answer is for Israel to close the Gaza-Egypt border to smuggling, destroy Hamas forces, kill its leaders, and maintain forces in Gaza to keep Hamas down (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 3/3).

Originally, Egypt's demands for more and heavily armed troops near Gaza were to position it against Israel. There was no reason for them. Now there would be reason for them, unless Israel takes its defense back into its own hands.


War is now supposed to be fair but it does have rules to curb barbarism, though the world distorts those rules against Israel. When one side has a preponderance of forces, it is called asymmetric warfare. The Muslim aggressors complain that this is unfair and falsely allege enemy attacks on armed troops to be barbaric massacres and justifies their own refusal to fight by civilized rules. They seek sympathy and gain international support and psychological advantage, as if warranted, although they sacrifice their own civilians, calling them martyrs and calling upon their duty to jihad. When their foe continues fighting by the rules, jihadists have the advantage, even while they are complaining. Israel could silence its foes by artillery, but risks its troops' lives in order to spare enemy civilians. Israel lets enemy civilians sue it. The West is too self-critical. It needs to win the ideological battle (MEF News, 3/3). Problem is, Israel further restrains itself than international law requires.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by PMW Bulletin, March 20, 2008.

Palestinian children in Gaza were gathered for an exhibition that depicts Israel burning children in a crematorium. Young children are seen standing beside dolls being placed into a model of a cremation oven.

According to the article in Al Ayyam, "The National Committee for defense of Children from the Holocaust opened its activities with a Holocaust exhibit. The Exhibit include a large oven and inside it small children are being burned, the picture speaks for itself." [Al Ayyam, March 20, 2008]

Itamar Marcus, Director of Palestinian Media Watch (http://www.pmw.org.il), was Israeli representative to the Tri-Lateral Anti Incitement Committee established under the Wye accords, and has written reports on Palestinian Authority, Syrian and Jordanian schoolbooks.

To Go To Top

Posted by Judy Lash Balint, March 20, 2008.

Jerusalem: The news that a senior Islamic Jihad terrorist, Shadi Sukiya, was captured by an elite anti-terror unit of the Israel Defense Forces while hiding out in the Jenin offices of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) did not make a ripple in the flood of coverage from the Iraqi front in late March 2003.

Just eleven days earlier, on March 16, the ISM did make world headlines when Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old ISM member, was run over by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah and died of her injuries.

Maybe the fact that a "peace organization" was found to be defending terrorists twice in a two-week period will factor into the inquiry called by several Washington state congressional representatives into the circumstances of Rachel Corrie's death.

With the fifth anniversary of Corrie's death having just passed us, only one thing remains certain about the events of March 16: Corrie died in Rafah, on the southern edge of the Gaza Strip, under very questionable circumstances.

The questions remain: Is Israel responsible for Corrie's death, or do the doctors at the Arab hospital where she was taken still alive after the accident bear any responsibility? What about the ISM that organizes protests in a closed military zone and encourages its members to play cat and mouse among the tanks and bulldozers? Or the Arabs who invite the "internationals" to risk their lives in a war zone? How she died, exactly where she passed her last moments and who should take the blame for Rachel Corrie's death are questions that demand answers.

The inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony raise doubts about the simplistic conclusions drawn ever since the event.

By all accounts, Rachel Corrie was one of a group of protesters attempting to disrupt the work of two IDF bulldozers leveling ground to detonate explosives in an area rife with terrorist activity. The bulldozers moved to a different area to avoid the protesters, and Corrie became separated from the group. Some of the agitators stood with a banner, while Corrie picked up a bullhorn and yelled slogans at the driver encased in the small cabin of the dozer. This went on for several hours on the afternoon of March 16. It's the kind of activity favored by the young pro-Palestinian types who make up the ISM.

There wasn't enough action for Corrie. According to fellow Evergreen State College student, Joseph Smith, 21, who was at the site, Corrie dropped her bullhorn and sat down in front of one of the bulldozers. She fully expected that the driver would stop just in front of her. "We were horribly surprised," Smith told me by phone from Rafah the day after the incident. "They had been careful not to hurt us. They'd always stopped before," he said.

As the dozer plowed forward heaping up a pile of dirt and sand, Corrie scrambled up the pile to sit on the top. Smith says she lost her footing as the bulldozer made the earth move beneath her feet. She got pulled down, he says. "The driver lost sight of her and continued forward. Then, without lifting the blade he reversed and Rachel was underneath the mid-section of the dozer, she wasn't run over by the tread."

Capt. Jacob Dellal of the IDF spokespersons office confirms what Smith says about the driver: he lost sight of Rachel. Inside the cab, some six feet off the ground, visibility is very restricted. The protesters should have known that and kept within the driver's line of sight to avoid getting hurt, Dellal asserts.

The strange thing about this part of the story is the discrepancy over the photos given to the press and posted on several pro-Arab websites.

As Smith describes to me his version of events, I ask about the series of photos printed in an Arab newspaper I picked up the morning after the incident, in Jerusalem's Old City. "They aren't of the actual incident," he states firmly. "We'd been there for three hours already, we were tired, we already had a lot of pictures."

Yet these are the pictures used on the ISM website to document the before and after of Rachel's interaction with the bulldozer. The same pictures are featured as a photo-essay on the site of Electronic Intifada, where they're even attributed to Joseph Smith.

There are several shots of the back of a woman with a blond ponytail facing a bulldozer. She's standing in an open field, wearing an orange fluorescent jacket, holding a megaphone.

Even Michael Shaik, the ISM media coordinator at the time, wouldn't confirm that these are pictures of Corrie taken the day she died. "I'm fairly sure they're of the incident," he tells me by phone from his Bethlehem office. In the same conversation, Shaik asks me not to contact Joe, Greg or Tom, the Rafah ISM eyewitnesses again directly: "They're still in trauma."

The pictures should have raised all kinds of questions to photo editors, but all the major newspapers and wire services chose to run the photos regardless. If there are pictures of Rachel before and after, why didn't the same photographer consider it important to document the act of the bulldozer running her down?

Where is the mound of earth Rachel clambered up and was buried in? The woman shown lying bleeding from her nose and mouth is lying on a flat piece of ground.

So, Corrie was either knocked down by the dozer, or fell in front of it. ISMers assume that she was intentionally run over, but there's no proof that was the driver's intent.

The real issue is, was Rachel alive when she was taken by Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance to Martyr Mohammed Yousef An Najar Hospital? In other words, where did she die? Were adequate efforts made to save her in the hospital?

Again, there are conflicting stories. Joseph Smith tells me in a telephone interview the day after the tragedy, "She died in the hospital or on the way to the hospital." CNN also reported that Rachel died there. (Israeli bulldozer runs over 23-year-old woman. CNN, Monday, March 17, 2003)

In his account posted on www.arabia.com, ISMer Tom Dale has a slightly different story. On March 17 he writes: "I ran for an ambulance, she was gasping and her face was covered in blood from a gash cutting her face from lip to cheek. She was showing signs of brain hemorrhaging. She died in the ambulance a few minutes later of massive internal injuries."

But Dr. Ali Mussa, director of Martyr Mohammed Yousef An Najar Hospital where Corrie was taken, seems confused. On the day of the event, Dr. Mussa tells AP Gaza reporter Ibrahim Barzak that Rachel died in the hospital. (American Killed in Gaza. AP. March 16, 2003)

One week later, in a telephone interview, Dr. Mussa states definitively to me that Rachel died at the scene, "in the soil," as he puts it. The main cause of death was suffocation, Mussa asserts. There were no signs of life, no heartbeat or pulse when she arrived at the hospital, he says. Mussa states that Rachel's ribs were fractured, a fact determined by X-rays.

Doesn't quite jive with the photo essay on the pages of the Electronic Intifada website for March 16, 2003. (Photo story: Israeli bulldozer driver murders American peace activist by Nigel Parry and Arjan El Fassed, The Electronic Intifada, 16 March 2003.)

A caption under one photo of doctors leaning over a female patient reads: Rachel arrived in the Emergency Room at 5:05 p.m and doctors scrambled to save her. By 5:20 p.m, she was gone. Ha'aretz newspaper reported that Dr. Ali Mussa, a doctor at Al Najar, stated that the cause of death was skull and chest fractures. Dr. Mussa told me he was one of the treating physicians, yet he alone maintains that Rachel was dead before she was put into the ambulance.

To further complicate matters, on that same website, a report from the Palestine Monitor is cited. Here, the writer says that Rachel fractured her arms, legs and skull. She was transferred to hospital, where she later died, says this report.

Just who is Dr. Ali Mussa? Clearly a man in favor with the Palestine Authority hierarchy. Dr. Mussa's views are aired on the official website of the PA's Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation: (January 27, 2003)

There, Dr. Mussa accuses Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's "terrorist government" of deliberately killing Palestinian children in Rafah.

A few days after the incident, ISM Media Coordinator Shaik tells me by phone from Rafah that three ISMers, Tom, Alice and Greg were in the ambulance with Rachel. She died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, says Michael.

But Greg Schnabel, 28, who is quoted in numerous wire service and newspaper stories, never says he witnessed the death of his comrade in the ambulance. In his account published a few days later on the ISM website, he carefully states that she died twenty minutes after arriving at the hospital.

What happened to Rachel's body after her death? Depends whom you ask. Dr. Mussa says it was kept for 24 hours at the hospital before a Red Crescent ambulance transported it to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, via the border where an Israeli ambulance took over. l Shaik says "we lost track of it (her body) after she died." Three ISMers tried to escort the body, but only one was permitted on the ambulance on the Israeli side. According to his account, the ambulance drove straight to the Israeli Forensic Institute at Abu Kabir, where an autopsy was performed. The Israelis are trying to say she died from a blow to the head by a rock, Shaik recounts.

Speaking about the autopsy, one of Rachel's ISM trainers, Iowa native LeAnne Clausen, a fieldworker for the Christian Peacemaker Team based in Beit Sahour, tells me: "The general sentiment within ISM is that the Israelis are trying to suggest perhaps Rachel was on drugs."

In reality, IDF spokesperson Dellal says that initial Israeli investigation results indicate that the cause of death was most likely a blow to the head and chest by a blunt object, possibly a chunk of cement dug up by the bulldozer.

In keeping with ISM sympathies, Rachel received a shaheed (martyr) procession in Rafah, the day after her death. But here again, there's confusion between reality and photo op. Some accounts noted that her coffin draped in an American flag was paraded through the streets. Yet a picture on the site of her college town's peace movement, the Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace, shows Arab women holding a coffin covered by a Palestinian flag with the caption: Palestinian funeral for Rachel.

Confusion and obfuscation seem to be a trademark of the ISM. In May 2002, a number of ISMers raced past Israeli soldiers into the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where dozens of Palestinian terrorists had holed up to evade capture by the IDF outside. After an agreement was reached, the ISM members refused to leave the church, holding up the solution. Then they charged that they were mistreated by clergy, who claimed the ISMers desecrated the church by smoking and drinking alcohol.

Another revealing ISM action took place shortly before the Bethlehem incident, when a number of protesters managed to make their way past IDF barricades into Yasser Arafat's Ramallah compound to protect the terrorist leader.

Strange, given the fact that most ISMers are avowed anarchists decrying any kind of governmental authority. Corrie's Swedish boyfriend and fellow ISMer told a reporter for Seattle's The Stranger newspaper, (April 4, 2003) that Corrie could be described as an anarchist.

Still, the politics of the Ismers are predictable. Another Evergreen student who arrived in Israel around the same time as Corrie says he has "been at war with the multinational corporations for some time now." His "baptism of fire" took place at the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle, he proclaims.

Joe Smith, recounts his motivation to join forces with the ISM. "Because I felt it was one of the best ways for me to use my privilege as a white middle class American male to directly serve impoverished people of color who are under-privileged due to the Israeli and other Western governments, especially mine.

I have dedicated my life to serving such people (ed. Arabs), as I believe my over-privilege is a direct result of their under-privilege. I have benefited from their suffering, and this must stop."

ISM activity in Rafah has more to do with being used to defend terrorists than preventing suffering of the masses. IDF efforts in Rafah were concentrated on preventing the flow of arms and explosives over the border from Egypt into the terrorist's dens that riddled the area. Less than a week after Rachel died defending terrorists, Israeli tanks moved into Rafah, surrounded several houses, and arrested two Hamas members. IDF spokesperson, Dellal calls Rafah, "the most dangerous area in the West Bank and Gaza," and decries the provocative protests of ISM. "There's nothing wrong with civil disobedience, but these people crossed the line of what was safe for everyone," Dellal says.

So, while the memorial services laud and remember Rachel Corrie as a peace activist murdered by Israeli occupation forces, the truth lies elsewhere.

An Israeli bulldozer injured Corrie as she tried to prevent it doing its job of protecting Israeli civilians, but she was alive when she was taken to An Najar Hospital, according to at least three eyewitnesses. Only Dr. Mussa, a man intent on accusing Israel of child killing, claims otherwise. None of Rachel's comrades have stated they were with her in the hospital when she died. No one has commented on the extent of efforts to preserve Corrie's life at An Najar.

And all the while, the ISM continues to encourage misguided young people from around the world,like Rachel Corrie, to spend time in the Middle East providing cover for terrorists.

Judy Lash Balint is an award-winner investigative journalist and author of "Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" (Gefen) and Jerusalem Diaries: What's Really Happening in Israel (Xulon Press). Visit her website at http://jerusalemdiaries.blogspot.com. This appeared today on Front Page Magazine

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 19, 2008.

This article was written by Georg Bönisch and Klaus Wiegrefe and translated from the German by Christopher Sultan. It appeared in Der Spiegel

From doctors to opera singers, teachers to truant schoolchildren, the extermination of European Jews was the work of roughly 200,000 ordinary Germans and their helpers. Years of research –– not yet complete –– reveal how sane members of a modern society committed murder for an evil regime.

Walter Mattner, a police secretary from Vienna, was there in October 1941 when 2,273 Jews were shot to death in Mogilyov in Belarus. He later wrote to his wife: "My hand was shaking a bit with the first cars. By the tenth car, I was aiming calmly and shooting dependably at the many women, children and babies. Bearing in mind that I have two babies at home, I knew that they would suffer exactly the same treatment, if not ten times as bad, at the hands of these hordes." After World War II, it was obvious to most observers that such acts could only have been committed by sadists and psychopaths, under orders from a handful of principal war criminals surrounding Adolf Hitler. It was a comforting way of looking at things, because it meant that ordinary people were not the real perpetrators.

But the horrifying results of an opinion poll that the Americans conducted in their occupation zone in October 1945 could have raised doubts even then about the version of the story that blames everything on a few pathological criminals. Twenty percent of the respondents "agreed with Hitler's treatment of the Jews." Another 19 percent said that although they felt that his policies toward Jews were exaggerated, they were fundamentally correct.

It took until the 1990s before historians and other experts embarked on a large-scale search for those men (and women) who carried out the Holocaust. The research isn't complete yet, but the results available to date are shocking.

The researchers found that the perpetrators included both committed Nazis and people who had nothing to do with the Nazis. The murderers and their assistants included Catholics and Protestants, the old and the young, people with double doctorates and poorly educated members of the working class. And the percentage of psychopaths was not higher than the average in society as a whole.

The number of perpetrators is now estimated at 200,000 Germans (and Austrians). They were police officers like Walter Mattner, concentration-camp personnel, members of the SS, or administrators. Another 200,000 Estonians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and other foreigners also helped kill Jews, some because they were forced to do so and others voluntarily.

Crimes of Conviction, Crimes of Excess

Like Satan in the Old Testament, evil had many faces. There were those who committed crimes out of conviction, the dedicated Nazis in the police force –– members of the SS and the military who, like Hitler, were convinced that the Jews were the root of all evil. Some committed their first murders in the 1920s and 1930s. There were also those who committed crimes of excess, taking advantage of the Jews' lack of rights in Eastern Europe to rape and steal. In Western Galicia, for example, members of the occupation police force would spend their free time shooting Jews in the ghetto or blackmailing them for their jewelry.

There were those who just carried out orders from above, like Major Trapp of Reserve Police Battalion 101. According to witness testimony, Major Trapp was in tears when he ordered the shooting of 1,500 women, children and elderly Jews near Warsaw, all the while saying: "An order is an order!" In July 1942, his men drove the victims out of their houses, loaded them into trucks and took them to a remote clearing to be executed. They shot them in the head or in the back of the neck, and in the evenings the soldiers' uniforms were covered with bone fragments, brain matter and bloodstains.

Just as there is usually more than one perpetrator, there is a host of reasons why perfectly normal men turn to murder: years of indoctrination, blind faith in leaders, a sense of duty and obedience, peer pressure, the downplaying of violence as a result of wartime experiences, not to mention the lust for Jewish property.

One man who seemed to have no trouble switching from his desk to the massacres in the East was Dortmund native Walter Blume, born in 1906, the son of a teacher and a lawyer who completed the German equivalent of the bar examination with a poor grade of "adequate." Nevertheless, in 1932 Blume got a job as an assistant judge on the district court in his hometown.

Blume's career in the Hitler regime started on March 1, 1933, shortly after the Nazis came to power. His first position was as head of the political division at the police headquarters in Dortmund. After joining the Nazi Party and the Storm Troopers (SA), he became head of the Nazi secret police, or Gestapo, in the eastern city of Halle, in Hannover and later in the capital Berlin. The main purpose of rapid rotation in high-ranking positions, typical of the Gestapo, was to provide opportunities to gather repressive experience.

Starting on March 1, 1941, Blume headed the personnel department in Division I of the so-called Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Security Main Office, or RSHA). His first assignment was to assemble suitable personnel for one of the murder commandos of the so-called Einsatzgruppen (Special Action Groups), a force consisting of roughly 3,000 men, known as the "Gestapo on Wheels." This group followed Hitler's army as it marched eastward and was charged with the immediate liquidation of "Jewish Bolshevism" and the "excision of radical elements."

Blume himself led a unit known as Special Commando 7a, which was part of Einsatzgruppe B. According to Blume's own records, his unit killed roughly 24,000 people in Belarus and Russia between June and September 1941. A short time later, Blume returned to the RSHA, where he was promoted to the position of division head and SS banner leader. In August 1943, he went to Athens, where he and two associates of Adolf Eichmann organized the deportation of Greek Jews to the Auschwitz extermination camp.

Blume was placed on trial in Nuremberg in September 1947, together with 22 other men, whose regular occupations qualified them as members of upper-class civil society. They included a dentist, a professor, an opera singer, a Protestant pastor, a teacher –– and a few journalists. Fourteen were sentenced to death, but only in four cases was the sentence carried out. US High Commissioner John McCloy pardoned the rest, including Blume, and they were gradually released from prison over the years. Blume went on to become a businessman.

Most of the perpetrators were never punished. There have been 6,500 convictions to date, and only 1,200 of them were for murder or manslaughter.


Landmines in the Desert Sand: Nazi Landmines Block Egypt's Access to Oil and Gas (03/12/2008)

March 12, 1938: Annexation Austrian-Style (03/12/2008)

New Photos of the Annexation: A Citizen's-Eye View of the Nazis in Austria (03/12/2008)

Bravery Medal Tainted by Nazis: Jewish Council Attacks German Plans for New Iron Cross (03/10/2008)

Insanity on the Spree: New Exhibit Explores Hitler's 'Germania' (03/10/2008)

Photo Gallery:: Ordinary Mass Murderers

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Crystal, March 19, 2008.

This is from "Myths and Facts Online –– A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict" by Mitchell G. Bard which can be viewed online at the Jewish Virtual Library ––

For the latest on the peace process, see "Keeping Track of the Road Map" at

MYTH: The Palestinians have recognized Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State.


Whenever Israel has been asked to negotiate with one of its enemies, one condition that is often presented is that Israel's right to exist be recognized. When, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin agreed to lift the longtime ban on negotiations with the PLO, Yasser Arafat was first required to write a letter renouncing terrorism and recognizing Israel's right to exist. Israel subsequently began what came to be known as the Oslo peace process. Of course, it turned out the "recognition" was largely meaningless as Arafat continued to support violence aimed at undermining Israel's existence.

Since the Hamas takeover of Gaza, some people, including Israeli and American officials, have conditioned talks with that terrorist group on its recognition of Israel. As in the case of the PLO, such a statement would mean little without corresponding deeds. To date, Hamas has explicitly said it has no intention of ever recognizing Israel's right to exist and has repeatedly said it is committed to Israel's destruction.

Even Mahmoud Abbas, who is often referred to as a "moderate," has made clear that he does not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.[197] This has not deterred Israeli officials from negotiating with him because they understand that Israel's future depends on their ability to reach an agreement with the Palestinians and other neighbors that ensures Israel's security whether the Arabs or Muslims acknowledge the Jews' right to statehood or not.

Most people have forgotten Abba Eban's wise admonition made more than 25 years ago: "Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its 'right to exist.' Israel's right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel's legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement...There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its 'right to exist' a favor, or a negotiable concession."[198]


197. Roee Nahmias, "Report: Abbas Does Not Rule Out Resuming Armed Conflict with Israel," YNET News, February 28, 2008.

198. Abba Eban, "The Saudi Text," The New York Times, November 18, 1981 This article can be found at
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/exclusives.html#a89 See also his blog: http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/author/mbard

Crystal is moderator of EUROPEANS_WHO_SUPPORT_ISRAEL@yahoogroups.com. Contact her at k_hallal@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 19, 2008.


Every time that Israel asserts its rights, this time to build houses in parts of Jerusalem and north of it, the NY Times asserts that this complicates the "peace process." As if there were a peace process and as if Israel has no rights.

The P.A. media in Judea-Samaria, under direct control of Abbas, daily incites violence against Jews or denies any Israeli rights. Almost every Friday, the mosques there preach bigotry and murder. Terrorists don't get restrained, they get recruited into the regular P.A. forces, taking care of their financial needs while they moonlight as terrorists. It would take a diligent search to find the Times asserting that those actions, to which the Muslims have no right, complicate the "peace process." They disprove that the Muslims are in that kind of process.

As for the building, itself, PM Olmert, following the lead of PM Sharon and in fact the general duplicity in secretly and illegally setting up the Olso accords and failing to enforce Muslim obligations, lies often. His whole tenure is an exercise in maneuvering his people to surrender to the Arabs. He says what he thinks he can get away with or what he thinks would mollify them. In an undemocratic fashion, he holds close control over building permits. Thus he tells his people he allows building in the Territories, he allows the Army a free hand in fighting against terrorism in Gaza, and he is not negotiating for Jerusalem. His aides testify otherwise. He also, like many Israeli officials and like the Arabs, plays with wording, so as to give a false impression.

The Israeli media admittedly protects his tenure of appeasement by not drawing attention to his self-contradictions and daily changes of apparent policy. The US media duly reports each day's events as if unrelated to the prior day's contradictory version. The Times, too, probably is doing that to protect him. I think that the US media, in general, however, just doesn't think things over. The US Jewish organizations, which usually go along with whatever the Israeli government proposes, do not figure out what is best for Israel. If they did, they would come up with something different from what Israel's ruling elite suggests. ZOA is an exception. Its frankness has not caught on. Disaster approaches, but the Jewish people see it not. They are complacent, those who are not emotionally disturbed enough to be on the other side. As if they would not be murdered by victorious jihadists.


With newly devised technology and old rules of combat, the Israelis try to minimize collateral casualties. With newly devised technology and old rules of combat, the Muslims try to maximize collateral casualties. The humanitarians condemn only Israel and for its self-defense against genocide.


When Hamas started shelling Ashkelon, PM Olmert called it intolerable. Does that mean he tolerates the thousands of rockets that fell on Siderot? Now he says he is going to take action. But he has been saying that, all along.

The constant Israeli threats seriously are not fulfilled. Israel is deterred by Hamas rockets (Prof. Steven Plaut, 2/29).

The last few governments repeatedly threaten terrorists, but it's mostly talk.

Now compare Israel's lack of adequate counter-terrorism with the world's talk about heavy Muslim casualties. That talk is put as humanitarian but favors aggression.


P.A. head, Holocaust denier, and supposed moderate Abbas ranted against Israeli raids in Gaza, which killed 32 people out of the hundreds of thousands there. He accused Israel of targeting women, children, and the elderly, committing a "holocaust."

He knows that if Israel wanted to, it could kill a hundred thousand people in no time, and at no risk, but instead tries to minimize Arab casualties (IMRA, 3/1).

His accusations are defamatory and vicious. How can that be "moderate?"


Against the opposition of member organization Orthodox Union, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs passed a resolution that includes: (1) Egypt and Jordan have proved that Arabs can make peace and implement agreements; (2) The problem is not settlements but Arab refusal to accept a Jewish state with secure borders; (3) The P.A. made commitments for peace, against terrorism, and to build proper institutions; (4) US Jewry should favor two states west of the Jordan R. and support the Israeli government's position, and the world should subsidize the P.A. (IMRA, 3/1).

Why support the position of the Israeli government, which is foolish and anti-Zionist? Why subsidize the P.A., whose goal is conquest? Why set up a P.A. state which is irredentist and probably would be taken over by Hamas? Since the P.A. has violated all its commitments for 14 years, citing those commitments is foolish. Yes, the problem is Islamic prejudice. Egypt and Jordan proved they can make peace agreements but not implement them. The Jewish Council resolution promotes appeasement, not peace.


If the Geneva Convention applies (and it may not), Israel is not required to ship anything to the P.A.. "Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention only requires Israel to permit passage of food, clothing, and medicines intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers, and maternity cases." The Convention does not require permitting passage of fuel and electricity.

Accusations of collective punishment DO apply to Hamas but not to Israel. Accusations of "disproportionate" reaction against Israel do not fit it definition. Those who accuse Israel of disproportionate retaliation make the charge against whatever Israel does, either because they just don't want Arabs killed (IMRA, 3/1) or will make up anything to keep Israel from winning.

Incidentally, Israel delivers, or lets be delivered to Gaza, much more than required. I don't approve.


Tens of thousands of Muslim men in the US, Britain, France, and Italy practice polygamy. The authorities quietly fail to enforce the law over it. In Britain and Canada, the law now grants espousal benefits to multiple wives. (It is another example of Muslims exploiting Western welfare policies.)

One problem is that Islamic law codifies inequality. Another is that when Muslim men marry in religious courts outside the law, the wives lack certain protections of the law.

Polygamy breaks the law and leads to disrespect for it.

Polygamy leads to dissatisfaction by wives, dissatisfaction by young men (not explained why), and children who see that men count more than women. Society becomes more dysfunctional and discriminatory.

The acceptance of certain parts of Islamic law in some Western countries leads to Islamic demands for acceptance of more parts and in more countries, strangling native culture gradually, as by a boa constrictor.

When the West resists, it can win (MEFNews, 3/1).


A pre-dawn air raid blew up the office of the head of Hamas in Gaza. Nobody was there at the time (IMRA, 3/2). Why not in daytime?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, March 19, 2008.

This was written by P. David Hornik and it appeared today in Front Page Magazine
(www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID= 735A0029-C13C-4B5A-BC16-B37565701650). Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.

"Our people in Jerusalem are under an ethnic cleansing campaign. They are suffering from a series of decisions like tax hikes and construction prohibitions. [Palestinians] are facing a campaign of annihilation [by Israel]."

Those were the words of Mahmoud Abbas last week to the summit of Islamic countries in Dakar, Senegal. And what a crew it was; Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad chimed in, using rhetoric about the same as that of Abbas, with "[Israel] just kills innocent women and children, but the UN Security Council stays silent." Sudanese genocide president Omar al-Bashir was there, too, among the roster of heavies.

For Abbas –– given tremendous credit by the U.S. and Israeli governments as a man of peace –– vilifying Israel before this crowd was like pouring oil on flames as he confirmed the world's darkest fantasies and designs about Israel. Nor is he on record as saying a single more conciliatory word about Israel, the "conflict," or resolving it.

Yet, asked about Abbas's reference to "annihilation," all State Department spokesman Sean McCormack could come out with was "we would not use that term to describe the situation. I think it's probably an example of some overheated political rhetoric."

Meaning that Abbas was once again protected, whitewashed, and coddled –– this time by taking the specificity out of his act of deadly incitement and putting it in a broad category of "overheated rhetoric" that, by clear implication, is supposed to be bilateral. McCormack could not, of course, have pointed to remotely comparable statements by Israeli leaders like Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, and Shimon Peres as they traipse through the world heaping praise on Abbas's "moderation" and "pragmatism."

But the U.S. has big plans for Abbas and there's no use getting bogged down in details. As Ellen Knickmeyer and Glenn Kessler reported in the Washington Post on Saturday, since late January U.S. and Jordanian instructors have been training about 600 members of Abbas's National Security Force and 425 members of his presidential guard in Jordan.

Knickmeyer and Kessler mention some minor snafus and equipment shortages but, more significantly, that "Because of Israeli concerns, the group of...Palestinian trainees has not been outfitted with pledged body armor or light-armored personnel carriers":

The Israeli government has insisted that the Palestinian...forces be trained and equipped as a police force rather than an army that could threaten the Jewish state... Israeli officials have blocked delivery of body armor to Palestinian forces of a grade capable of stopping rounds from the M-16 assault rifles used by Israeli troops, American officials said... "You never know when these things are going to be used against you," Shlomo Dror, spokesman for the Israeli Defense Ministry, said of armor and weapons.

Dror added that Palestinian forces don't need the kind of armor requested and that "we are the ones fighting the terror. Dealing with Hamas is what we do."

Indeed, an earlier U.S.-trained contingent of Fatah forces didn't do very well against Hamas in Gaza last June when they were routed in five days and by many accounts didn't fight at all. For that and the other reasons Congress shares Israel's misgivings: Knickmeyer and Kessler note that, while last summer Congress approved $28 million out of $86 million earmarked for the Palestinian security training, since then it has approved no further money.

But with the Bush-Rice pro-Fatah juggernaut impervious as ever to empirical concerns, on Sunday the Israeli daily Haaretz reported that the administration has gone ahead and asked Congress to fund a new PA battalion to be trained in Jordan while eventually planning to create five such battalions to serve under Abbas in the West Bank.

Although critics of the juggernaut know that pointing to mere facts about Abbas and his Fatah has no effect, still it is worth citing a few of these facts that are of recent vintage (some of the material is taken from relevant web pages of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center):

* January 29, 2007: Three Israelis were killed in a suicide bombing in a bakery in the southern city of Eilat. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed joint responsibility with Islamic Jihad.

* October 21, 2007: Israeli Security Agency chief Yuval Diskin revealed that the PA had released three terrorists from a squad that had planned to assassinate Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during a planned visit to Jericho in June (the other two squad members were arrested by Israel). Two of those detained by the Palestinians belonged to the National Security Force and the third served in General Intelligence. Two of the three were also members of Fatah-Tanzim. Nevertheless, all three operatives held by the Palestinians were released on September 26 when their investigation ended.

* November 19, 2007: Ido Zoldan, 29, was killed in a shooting attack in the northern West Bank when terrorists opened fire from a passing car. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility as "an act of protest against the Annapolis conference."

* December 28, 2007: Cpl. Ahikam Amihai (20) and Sgt. David Rubin (21) were killed by Palestinian terrorists while hiking in the Hebron area. That same day, the two terrorists turned themselves in to Palestinian General Intelligence in Hebron to avoid being apprehended by Israeli security forces. Statements to the media by Palestinian security elements to the effect that the incident was of a criminal, not security, nature were contradicted both by information in Israel's possession and the confessions of the terrorists themselves. Apparently, these statements were designed to obviate the Palestinian Authority's responsibility for the incident mainly because the murders were perpetrated by Fatah and security-apparatus members. In January the PA sentenced the two killers to 15 years in prison as Israeli security sources decried the PA's known "revolving door" policy; most recently there are reports of an "escape" or "furlough."

* January 24, 2008: Border Guard Lance Cpl. Rami Zuari, 20, of Beersheva was shot and killed at a checkpoint at the northern entrance to Shuafat, north of Jerusalem. The Battalions of Struggle and Return, a previously anonymous offshoot of Fatah's Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack.

Abbas, who presides over terrorist forces and engages in terroristic incitement –– not to mention the genocidal-hatred-saturated official media, education system, and religious establishment of his PA –– has been (as he proudly acknowledged) a terrorist since the 1960s and remains one. America's backing for him has put it in conflict even with a weak-kneed Israeli government that is eager to play along with the pro-Abbas game but not at any price. It's a shameful chapter for America.

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 19, 2008.

This is a news item from today's Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420726277&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

According to a recent poll the number of Israelis who support further withdrawals from the West Bank has dropped significantly in the years since the 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria.

The question asked by the "Motagim" poll was: "In light of the results of the disengagement process from the Gaza Strip, are you in favor of a continued withdrawal from Judea and Samaria?"

64.9 percent –– nearly two-thirds –– responded that they were opposed to further withdrawals and 23.9 percent said they were in favor. The rest refused to answer the question.

The poll also divided the results according to various sectors in Israeli society, showing that 95 percent of haredim were opposed to further withdrawals, as were 90.9 percent in the religious community and 57 percent of the secular community.

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 19, 2008.

I wrote recently about the fact that Arabs living inside of Israel are in some instances sympathetic to our enemies and in a smaller number of instances actively supportive. The issue arose with particular potency after the massacre at Yeshivat Mercaz Harav. In several respects I feel it is important to return to this issue for further exploration.

There were readers (a few) who expressed concern that Israel not come down too hard on those living here who are sympathetic to Hamas; they focused on rights that adhere in a democracy, which must be protected. Israel should not act –– or be seen to act –– in ways that are repressive. I would like to address that.

Israel, if anything, bends over backwards to be tolerant of those expressing anti-Israel sentiment. In my opinion (even as an American born and bred, coming out of liberal traditions), I believe this has been too much the case. It's maddening when Arab MKs express support for those wishing to attack us.

And I hasten to assure those who are concerned about these issues that there is no intention within the government to take wholesale repressive actions against the Arab population.

However, we are dealing with situations that are literally existential, and it is time to examine seriously, and without concern for what is politically correct, what potential dangers lurk within the Arab Israeli population, and what measures might be required to protect the nation.

One reader referred to the time of the Vietnam war, and the fact that those protesting it –– including by burning American flags –– were permitted their freedoms. My response was that, while those protestors could –– and in fact did –– affect the outcome of the war, there was no possibility of their bringing about the destruction of the US. Here the risks are far more immediate.


It remains important, as we look at this issue, to differentiate between various Arab populations –– something I did not do sufficiently before. Caroline Glick addressed this recently.

There are, for example, the Druze, who are loyal Israeli citizens who universally serve in the IDF, and the Bedouin, who are renowned as army trackers. There are Christian Arabs who flourish here in Israel and have no history of violence. And non-Arab Muslims, such as Circassians, who are integrated into Israeli society.

And then there is the difference between those living here as full citizens from the time of the War of Independence, as versus those in Jerusalem given residency status following our acquisition of eastern Jerusalem in 1967 and thereafter. (There is talk now about limiting the right of those resident in Jerusalem to move freely about the country.)

Glick is of the opinion that the problem lies with the leaders of the Arab community. The MKs, for certain. And the Higher Monitoring Committee, which I mentioned. There is as well the Islamic Movement in Israel, which is inciteful and has been involved in violent incidents. They are making inroads even in the Bedouin community.

The project to encourage Muslims Arabs who do not serve in the Israeli army to instead do national service provides a key example of how the Arab leadership intimidates. They have warned that anyone who participates in this project –– which makes them Israeli and "robs" them of their Palestinian identity –– will be ostracized by the community. Thus are young people who might be sincerely interested in participating discouraged.


And what of the general Arab Muslim population? As I indicated before, many are surely innocent of malign intentions towards the State, and want only to exist peacefully. But the leadership has turned many heads and made it a mark of disloyalty to the Palestinian people to be too much immersed in Israeli society. This is a problem in particular regarding the Arabs in eastern Jerusalem.

There has been a good deal of information coming out about the very quiet but strong sympathy for Hamas and for the terrorist Ala'a Abu Dheim in his neighborhood of Jebl Mukaber. No one can deny the impact of this situation on the Jewish population of Jerusalem.


After the massacre, the family of Abu Dheim set up a mourning tent. While they were required to remove the banners for Hamas and Hezbollah, the tent itself was permitted to stand. There were even comments here from Israeli officials –– that did not sit well in many quarters –– that the family had a right to mourn.

There was an official attempt made to take down the family's house but that never happened because of legal considerations that blocked this action.

So much for concerns about the Arabs not being accorded their rights.


In fact, there was a considerable response in just the opposite direction: concern that this family of a terrorist was being accorded all together too much consideration.

In this spirit, several hundred right wing activists, on Sunday, gathered in Talpiot, adjacent to the Jebl Mukaber neighborhood, with the declared intention of first protesting and then moving into the Arab neighborhood to take down the house of the terrorist's family. There was, it should be noted, no call whatsoever for violence against persons.

A large cadre of police met them and for the most part blocked them. But some young people made it down the hill to the Arab area, and, inevitably, there was stonethrowing (apparently from both sides) before arrests were made.

For the record, while I have full sympathy with their position, I regretted this action, which I see as counterproductive to the goals of expressing Jewish rights. Such confrontations, even when reasonably mild, fuel false accusations of crazy right wing intentions to kill Arabs.


As to false accusations: After the massacre, there were rumors that rabbis from the yeshiva had sanctioned attacks on Arabs as retribution. In particular, Sheikh Raed Salah, the head of the Islamic Movement's northern branch, told supporters that he had been warned of plans to assassinate him.

The Shin Bet, however, after investigation, said these claims were baseless.

Salah is a trouble-maker, big-time, and this seems clearly a case of incitement.


Meanwhile a rabbi from the Ateret Kohanim Yeshiva in the Old City was stabbed in the neck by an Arab.


A house that was destroyed was that of terrorist Muhammad Shehadeh, taken out by Israel in Bethlehem last week. And guess who has announced intentions to rebuild it? The Palestinian Authority.


German Chancellor Angela Merkel addressed the Knesset yesterday, in spite of being boycotted by four MKs who objected to her speaking in German. Her words were moving as she spoke about German hearts filled with shame because of the Holocaust and the special German responsibility to work for Israel's security, which she tied to issues of Iranian threats. A nuclear Iran would be disastrous, she declared.

But all is not sweetness and light here. German trades significantly with Iran and appeases radical Muslims. What is more, from exceedingly well informed sources I've learned of the growing and very worrisome anti-Semitism in Germany.

See Caroline Glick on Germany as an appeaser, and Israel as an appeaser of Germany, helping to play the game:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid= 1205420711513&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


I've written about the meddling into our security situation of US military envoys and of Defense Minister Barak's deliberate and laudable snubbing of a meeting with American generals because of his pique with them.

Now JINSA has put out a report (# 756) applauding Barak, as well, and taking a hard look at the way in which the US is interfering in Israel's security issues:

"The American generals appear to have three complaints –– Israel is not sharing enough intelligence with the Palestinian Security Services; IDF security operations in the West Bank are driving terrorists into the Palestinian-controlled areas, accounting for the inability of the Palestinian Authority to maintain order; and Israel refuses to institute new security procedures (removing checkpoints) as 'peace negotiations move forward.'

"This is a blatant American attempt to a) interfere with the Israeli government's obligation to secure the people of Israel, and; b) blame Israel for the increasing anarchy in the West Bank. We strongly believe it is the result of demands by the State Department for the military envoys to make 'progress' toward the independent Palestinian State to which the administration is committed –– regardless of circumstances on the ground.

"The American military professionals appear frustrated by their inability to create any kind of reliable security force among the Palestinians. That they can't is understandable, but that isn't Israel's problem. Israel has to deal with a well-understood threat to its people and cannot subcontract out the work to semi-reformed terrorists in Fatah."
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/ 650/documentid/4034/history/3,2359,650,4034

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daisy Stern, March 19, 2008.

The message below is by Shmuel.

Also, don't forget the SELF-DEFENSE CLASSES advocated by Victims Of Arab Terror. (VAT International) –– Contact Shifra Hoffman by email at hoffmanshifra@gmail.com

And Rabbi Lazer Brody's link (http://lazerbrody.typepad.com/):

I certainly endorse self-defense, but on one condition: The instructor must be a G-d –– fearing Jew, otherwise the loss is bigger than the gain. The best in the business is the Abir Aluf, Rav Yehoshua Sofer. His number is 052-672 0333. Blessings always and warm
bsorot tovot, LB

LOL. I am a Jewish "Gaucho" and a Levite tracing my ancestry all the way to the Gershonite family. I am also a former soldier in the IDF that received the "OT LEBANON", the original one... But I do not check others credentials... ;

I received training as I mentioned and also as a amateur boxer and swordsman. In the IDF I received also basic training again.

The Oslo plan is by now completely exposed for what it was and is. The further labels attached to it cannot disguise the truth and we must act in accordance. It really amazes me that some of our brothers in Torah and G.d's ways do not understand even basic self defense needs. That leaves their wives, children, schools, farms, businesses and all of us at the mercy of those entities hatched by islam.

TRAINING: Moses was trained at the Court of the Pharaoh and used that training when he fought off the marauders at the water well and also later when organizing our people militarily. In fact Moses uppercut to the slave driver was not bad either... During the war of independence? here there were many non Jewish experts training our incipient military. Then really JEWISH.

I worked for the US Department of Defense as a Senior/Fellow Engineer and I can attest that they, (and me), trained tens of thousands of our officers.

The first On Site US rep here was one Richard Zeman, Z'L, a devout Christian, that trained one of our major defense firms here on the production of F-16 critical components manufacturing. At the Tel Aviv Asia House there was a full Staff of GD and DCAS people, almost all non Jews that dedicated years to help us. Richard, Z'L also selected me to take his task before he returned to the US to be assigned to other Projects and I received terrific training in General Dynamics and Sperry as well as Honeywell Defense systems.

Lets not reject and demean good Gentiles and there are many, including but not limited to those honored as Righteous for saving many of our people during the Holocaust.

NOTE: No one should BUY or use knives for self defense unless properly trained to do so and aware of the dangers.

Children must never have access to the knives but should have training on basic tactics if attacked.

I will be offering materials commonly available for self defense to those in danger. I can be reached at 050 796 9322.

Since I was 8 years old, Pedro Salinas, our head Gaucho at the Ranch taught us Gaucho knife fighting and self defense.

He insisted on us using the "facon", long Gaucho knife sheeted at an angle at the waist's back, in a way that it would "come out cutting". They are nothing to play with, lightning fast and knowledgeable. Probably people living in the midst of the islamic beasts in Jerusalem should have training on at least knife attack defense. There are methods and materials available for those willing to learn.

Contact Daisy Stern by email at daisystern1@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daisy Stern, March 19, 2008.

This is a news item from Arutz-Sheva www.israelnn.com –– more on how the Government is treating Jewish teen agers like an enemy –– (and treating the Arab enemy with consideration and respect.)

Bar Association: Girls Held in Subhuman Conditions

The Prisons Service Committee of the Israel Bar Association published a scathing report Wednesday on the prison conditions of five minor girls, who were arrested at a nationalist protest in Jabel Mukaber this week. The committee members visited the Russian Courtyard detention center and interviewed the five girls, aged 14 to 17, who refused to identify themselves before the authorities.

"The minor girls were given used military blankets that emit a bad smell, and that is an understatement," the report said. Three of the girls shared a cell with a adult woman who smoked. The cell "was full of cigarette smoke and had no ventilation aperture."

The two other girls said they had not been given bed sheets but "stinky, used, military blankets. They did receive towels," the report went on to say, "but these were dirty and unusable." The report determined that the jailors were denying the girls food and water and insisting that they identify themselves first. Medical service for injuries suffered during the Jabel Mukaber incident was also denied on the same pretext.

Making food, water and medical attention conditional on the girl's agreement to identify themselves "is baseless and constitutes an egregious violation of their rights," the Bar Association committee determined. The conditions of their imprisonment are "harsh, inhuman and illegal," the report stated.

Contact Daisy Stern by email at daisystern1@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 19, 2008.

This was written by Caroline Glick. It is archived at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1205420711513&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's speech in German before the Knesset this afternoon will be the culmination of what the Israeli media has referred to as an "historic" three-day state visit to Israel. The day before Merkel launched her "historic" visit, Der Spiegel reported on the "historic" visit of another German to Afghanistan.

That visit ended on March 3 when the visitor in question, known as Cüneyt C. from Bavaria and also known as Saad Ebu Furkan blew himself up in front of a US guard post in Khost, an hour's drive from the border with Pakistan where the German-Turk underwent terror training. Two US soldiers were killed and dozens were wounded after being trapped beneath the rubble, making C. Germany's first successful suicide bomber.

Although the first German to kill US forces, C.'s associate, Sadullah K. a young German from the state of Hesse died trying. K. was killed in October in a US airstrike along the Pakistan-Afghan border after he also underwent training in Pakistan. Both men belonged to the German-based Islamic Jihad Union. The IJU made headlines in September when German investigators rounded up the leaders of an IJU cell which was planning massive attacks against American targets in Germany. These leaders –– also Germans –– were in contact with both C. and K. who escaped the police dragnet and made it to Pakistan after travelling through Turkey and Iran.

And of course, Germany's reputation as a home for al-Qaida-like jihadists was burnished by Saudi and Egyptian nationals who studied in Hamburg several years ago. Led by Muhammad Atta, they enjoyed German hospitality while planning the attacks they carried out in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.

MERKEL, WHO presents herself and her country as Israel's greatest friend and supporter in Europe, will no doubt ignore this story in her Knesset speech. She will doubtlessly also not mention that her country is Iran's largest importer. She might mention that last year Germany did cancel a half of its loan guarantees to German firms doing business with Iran. But she won't mention that the move has had almost no impact on trade volume. In a recent report on German firms in Iran, Reuters interviewed British businessman Robert Mills, who runs DHL's operation in Teheran. DHL, the express delivery firm is a unit of the mail and logistics group Deutsche Post.

Mills gushed about the booming business his firm is doing in Iran, in spite of the international sanctions. Mills said the tonnage handled by DHL jumped by 50 per cent in the last two years and the company has doubled its turnover in Iran since 2005 on the back of rising imports of everything from telecommunications equipment to car spare parts.

Like Mills, other businessmen representing German firms reported booming businesses and expanding opportunities in spite of UN sanctions. Business managers reported that their earnings have doubled and tripled in the past two years.

Iran's faith in its German business partners is apparently unlimited. Why else would it be considering listing $92 billion in shares of its energy holding company on the Frankfurt stock exchange? As MEED, the Middle East Business Intelligence Report reported Sunday, with over 1,700 German firms operating in Iran, the fact that Germany recently broke off banking ties with Iranian banks is not viewed as an obstacle to listing the firm on the Frankfurt exchange. A spokeswoman for Deutsche Borse, the company which manages the exchange told the journal that it would have no objection to listing the Iranian firm.

GERMANY'S actions toward Iran cannot be squared with Merkel's rhetoric of support for Israel and commitment to Israel's security. Both Germany's actions and its pro-Israel rhetoric can only be understood when seen through the lens of power politics –– which is the lens that informs European policymakers in their decisions relating to Israel, Iran, the Middle East, and indeed the world as a whole.

Power politics are a function of two main components –– the threat of war and violence, and economic leverage. From the Europeans' perspective, the Arab world and Iran wield both weapons of power politics against them. Through restive, increasingly radicalized Muslim minority populations in Europe –– like C. and K. and their IJU colleagues in Germany and Pakistan –– the Islamic world wields the threat of terror over the heads of European leaders. And through oil, they wield the ultimate commercial gun at Europe's head.

Neither the EU nor any single European state has managed to put together a coherent or rational domestic policy for contending with the threat posed by Europe's Muslim minorities. And so, the issue has been deflected to the realm of foreign policy. There, combined with the oil threat, the Europeans have contended with Arab and Islamic pressure by opting to appease them. This they do by attacking Israel, supporting the Palestinians, and preventing the disarmament or political defeat of Hizbullah in Lebanon.

The Europeans act as they do for a combination of reasons. First, they have no real military capacity to either defend themselves or attack the Arab and Muslim states which foment rebellion among their own Muslim minorities. Second, they have no wish to use their collective commercial power. If they were interested in the latter of course, they could paralyze the Iranian economy in weeks simply by cutting off their trade with Teheran. And third, the ultimate military free riders, they trust that the US or Israel, which are both more directly threatened by Iran's nuclear program than they, will take out Iran's nuclear installations for them.

THE EU'S appeasement policies have been made clear through their actions as the commanders of UNIFIL forces in Lebanon since the Second Lebanon War. It was Israel's hope that European forces, which make up the majority of the 15,000 UNIFIL forces in south Lebanon, would prevent Hizbullah from rearming after the war and, perhaps, help to strengthen the pro-Western Siniora government against Syrian, Iranian and Hizbullah attempts to overthrow it. Yet the opposite has occurred. Since the war, and under the blind eyes of the Europeans, Hizbullah has rebuilt its forces. Three years after the March 14 demonstration which fomented the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon, the Siniora government is paralyzed and the March 14 Movement is demoralized and in disarray.

The Germans provided the public with one of the most absurd displays of European hypocrisy and mendacity on February 29. That day, Germany transferred command over UNIFIL's naval contingent to Italy. After deploying a force of four ships and 2,400 men to the Lebanese coastline in 2006 with the expressed purpose of preventing Hizbullah's rearmament, Germany devoted most of its efforts to complaining about Israeli overflights of Lebanese airspace and provoking the IAF by launching German helicopters into Israeli airspace without prior coordination.

And yet, at the command handover last month, German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung announced, "We can guarantee that no weapons were smuggled by sea." For its part, Hizbullah has clearly been unimpressed by Germany's naval power. It has registered no complaints against Germany's navy, something it would have done if any of the 13,000 boats the Germans claim to have inspected was actually carrying its weapons. Significantly, while Hizbullah was downright friendly to the German navy, it went into a near apoplectic fit of rage when, the same week that the Germans transferred command to the Italians, the USS Cole anchored off Lebanon's coast.

While Merkel will ignore her country's economic support for Iran and its military weakness and decision to embrace appeasement of the Arabs at Israel's expense as a national and continental strategy during her address to the Knesset, she will wax poetically about her nation's support for the so-called "peace process" and Palestinian statehood.

Merkel of course, knows full well that Israel's presumptive Palestinian "peace partner" the Fatah movement is a terrorist group. She also knows that the Olmert-Livni-Barak government's presumptive interlocutor for peace, Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas is neither able nor interested in establishing a Palestinian state that will live at peace with Israel. She also knows that if the so-called peace process brings about a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, that state will simply be a terror state that will stand at the side of the terror state that was established in Gaza in 2005.

AND YET, rather than confront Merkel and her European colleagues with these known facts, the Olmert-Livni-Barak government prefers to play along with the farce. In their view, all of this is immaterial. The Israeli government's European policy is to appease the Europeans by helping them to appease the Arabs.

If the Olmert-Livni-Barak government were to pause to consider what they are doing they would recognize that they have missed the entire point. They have ignored the power politics that inform Europe's decision-makers' policy moves. Were they to recognize them, they would recognize their appeasement policy for the disaster it has become.

If Israel were to play the power politics game, it would understand that it must do three things. First, it must use its own considerable economic leverage to force individual European firms to decide if they are willing to forego Israeli technology in favor of Iranian export markets which make up only one percent of European foreign trade. Second, they would ensure that the Europeans understand that Israel will use its considerable military power to defeat its enemies. And finally, it would use its political weight to expose Europe's humanitarian and pro-peace rhetoric as a hypocritical sham. That is, Israel would work to change the Europeans' calculations of their own interests.

But of course, in the media frenzy of feel good German-Israeli friendship that has characterized Merkel's visit, none of this is likely to occur this week. And in the appeasement frenzied political climate that has gripped Israel since 1993, it is hard to imagine anyone stopping to realize that we are the only ones who take the Europeans at their word.

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, March 19, 2008.

Dear friends,

The "Peace Process" resembles Lord Charles Bowen's famous words
cited in
http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2008/02/ us-aid-fuels-pa.html

"I am reminded of a blind man in a dark room looking for a black hat that isn't there."

Your Truth Provider

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, March 18, 2008.

This was written by Robert Rozett, who is the director of the Yad Vashem Libraries, author of Approaching the Holocaust, Texts and Contexts, co-editor of The Holocaust –– Frequently Asked Questions, and co-editor of Encyclopedia of the Holocaust published by Facts on File and Yad Vashem. It appeared today as an Opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename= JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1205420711584

Seventy years ago, on March 13, 1938, after Nazi German forces had waltzed across the border the day before, the Nazis formally annexed their Austrian neighbor. The world accepted the annexation (Anschluss) with nary a sigh and the large majority of Austrians displayed enthusiasm for their new status as part of the Third Reich.

Austrians would go on to play central roles in the machinery of murder set up by their fellow countryman, Hitler, in his drive to destroy the Jews. It would take most Austrians many decades after the end of the Holocaust to stop considering themselves as Hitler's first victims and begin to face their responsibility for the crimes perpetrated by the Third Reich.

There were several reasons why the world acquiesced to the Nazi takeover of Austria. In part, the victors in World War I were weary of war and determined to avoid another bloodbath that might again take millions of lives. In part, the world saw certain logic in the idea of the unification of Austria and Germany. Pan-Germanism, the notion that all German-speaking people should live in one national unit, was not invented by Hitler and his cohorts. It blossomed following the unification of the disparate German states in 1871 into one nation state and the ensuing drive to forge a national identity. At the time of the unification, many German speakers were left out of the new Germany, chief among them those of neighboring Austria, then the senior partner in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. With the defeat of Germany and Austro-Hungary and the collapse of the old order at the end of World War I, Germany was humiliated and Austria reduced to a small and insignificant nation state. Mollifying the aggressive demands of those who wanted the unification of Germany and Austria carried with it an element of sense at the time. Some politicians who felt guilty over the excessive reparations demanded of the defeated nations in World War I saw placating Hitler as a corrective act. The fact that so many Austrians so earnestly supported Nazi designs on their country contributed even more to justifying Hitler's deed.

HALF A YEAR after the Anschluss of Austria, Hitler again played his Pan-German card, calling for the appropriation of the Sudetenland, the part of Czechoslovakia that contained a large percentage of ethnic Germans. This time the annexation was preceded by a conference that led to the infamous Munich Agreement, wherein Britain, France and Hitler's ally Italy, agreed to let the Nazis take the Sudetenland in exchange for Hitler's promise not to make any more territorial demands. As we all know Hitler promptly broke his promise, dismembering Czechoslovakia in March 1939, and detonating the outbreak of World War II, when he tried to swallow Poland the following September.

The policy of appeasing Hitler that began in Austria has come down to us as a symbol of shortsightedness and weakness. It is true that the architects of the policy could not have clearly known in 1938 that Hitler would embark on the mass systematic murder of the Jews or that he would launch a multi-front war with his allies that would engulf much of the world in flames for more than half a decade. In retrospect of course certain signs were there in his writings and speeches, but taking the step from hateful, belligerent words to murderous and destructive actions is a significant leap. In early 1938 Hitler himself had not yet formulated all of his plans for turning his words into deeds. The Final Solution for example would only be decided upon and implemented in autumn 1941.

Yet even in March 1938 much was known about Hitler and his cohorts. The Nazis had not yet shown their full murderous cruelty, but they had already displayed great malevolence. Beginning soon after the Nazi ascent to power in 1933, thousands of Germans who opposed them or were thought to oppose them began to be incarcerated in brutal concentration camps. For internal party considerations, on Hitler's orders leaders of the Nazi's own organization, the SA, were viciously murdered in 1934, in what came to be known at the Night of the Long Knives. By early 1938, the targeted persecution of Jews had unfolded from the boycott of Jewish business and discrimination in the many spheres of life to the expropriation of property. It was clear to any observer that Hitler was neither a tolerant democrat, nor benign autocrat, but a racist dictator who used violence and coercion to achieve his goals, without giving a second thought to humane considerations.

HAD THE world been better tuned into the evil the Nazis embodied already at an early stage, it might have been better equipped to deal with the threat they posed. In our contemporary world, beset by great evil that has already shown itself as such, it behooves us to recall the events that began with the annexation of Austria and the catastrophe that unfolded in its wake. The Anschluss should serve as a compelling reminder where the justification and appeasement of radical evil may lead.

Contact Shaul Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Zwick, March 18, 2008.

Recently, a secret meeting was held at the United Nations by the request of the Israeli representative. Present at this meeting were representatives from the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), United States (USA), Israel (ISRAEL), and the Palestinian Authority (PA). CN Publications obtained advance notice of this secret meeting and introduced a fly into the room. Using the latest advances in Israeli nanotechnology, the fly was fitted with a microscopic microphone and transmitter. Below is a transcript of the conversation transmitted by the fly.

ISRAEL: My friends, I have asked you to come to this meeting because the State of Israel is facing a severe dilemma and we would appreciate your advice and consent before we make any drastic decisions. You know that we are very concerned about criticism and condemnation from the international community so we would like to avoid that.

UN: We are always eager to assist any of our member nations. How can we help?

ISRAEL: Well, as you recall, the State of Israel was established 60 years ago in order to provide a homeland for millions of Jews scattered around the world who have not had a homeland in almost 2000 years. Many of these Jews were survivors of the Holocaust, living in Displaced Persons camps and had nowhere to go. It was decided that the best place for a Jewish homeland would be the Holy Land where the Jews have strong historical, religious, and cultural attachments.

UN: Yes, we are very proud of the role we played in establishing a homeland for Jews in portions of the former British Palestine Mandate.

ISRAEL: The dilemma that we are facing now is that there are still tens of thousands of Jews around the world who would like to immigrate to Israel.

UN: That's fine, so what's the problem?

ISRAEL: There is a severe shortage of suitable, affordable housing to attract new immigrants. There is even a shortage of housing to accommodate the natural growth of young Israeli couples who would like to raise their families in their ancestral homelands rich in Jewish history and culture.

EU: Well, the last time I traveled through Israel I saw plenty of vacant land in the Negev. Why don't you consider building housing developments in the Negev desert. I'm sure that the wonderful research that Ben Gurion University is doing on desert living would be helpful in making the Negev a more hospitable environment for residential habitation.

ISRAEL: Yes, that's true. But, unfortunately, much of the Negev is now within range of the Katyusha and Grad rockets being fired by terrorists in Gaza. Families are reluctant to live there after seeing the difficulties of life in Sderot.

PA: Yes, I also believe that the Negev would not be suitable for Jewish settlement. Much of that land is used by the nomadic Bedouins and their camels who are an endangered population. The Jews should find another location for settlement.

EU: How about the Galil in the north, there's still plenty of vacant land over there?

ISRAEL: Yes, that's true. However, there is a large population of Israeli Arabs living there who are becoming increasing hostile to the Jewish population. There has been a large increase in anti-semitic and rock-throwing incidents in the Galil. Jewish families are becoming afraid to raise their children there.

PA: I also don't believe that the Galil would be suitable for Jewish settlement. The Galil is the sight of many Arab villages that were vacated in the Naqba of 1948. When there is a peace agreement, millions of our Palestinian refugees would like to live in the land of their great grandfathers as guaranteed by the Right of Return.

UN: Yes, we cannot allow housing discrimination against the natural growth of the Arab population. Perhaps the Galil would not be suitable for increased Jewish settlement. Perhaps the distinguished representative from the Government of Israel has some other ideas.

ISRAEL: Well, we were considering the development of new housing in Eastern Jerusalem, which still has much vacant land and is close to Jewish commercial and cultural centers.

UN: Oh, No. We cannot approve of increased Jewish settlement in Eastern Jerusalem. That area is considered Occupied Palestinian Lands and Jewish settlement would be a violation of the Geneva Convention and international law.

PA: Absolutely, East Jerusalem is a holy city to over a billion Muslims and will become the capital of the Palestinian State. We cannot allow Jewish settlement there.

EU: Yes, Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem would interfere with the peace process and contiguity of a Palestinian state, we cannot approve of that.

USA: Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem would be a gross violation of the Roadmap agreement, and we not condone that.

ISRAEL: Well, then how about if we build communities on the hilltops in Judea and Samaria? There are still many vacant hilltops in the Judean Hills and each could support a community of about 50,000 people.

PA: Absolutely not! The West Bank is Occupied Palestinian Territory that will soon become a Palestinian state and we cannot allow the illegal establishment of Jewish settlements there. In fact, all existing Jewish settlements are illegal under international law and must be dismantled and their Jewish inhabitants relocated to other Jewish areas.

UN: Yes, that's true. The UN considers the West Bank to be Occupied Palestinian Territory and Jewish settlement would be a violation of international law and the Geneva convention. No, we cannot condone that.

EU: Jewish settlement in the West Bank would interfere with the peace process and the two-state solution. We cannot approve of that.

USA: Increased Jewish settlement in the West Bank would be a violation of the Roadmap agreement that Israel agreed to. We cannot approve of that. You will have to find another site for Jewish settlement.

PA: How about Montana and Wyoming? There is plenty of vacant land there that would allow Jews to live in a hospitable environment.

USA: That would present a problem. While we admire the many contributions that Jewish immigrants have made to the United States, we are concerned that an increased Jewish presence in those two states might lead to ethnic friction with the indigenous population. In addition, much of that territory is pristine land reserved for national parks. The environmentalists in Congress would not allow any urbanization. Can you imagine the thousands of soiled disposable diapers that would be produced by young Jewish families? No, that land would be better used for cattle grazing. It would not be suitable for Jewish settlements.

UN: Perhaps the Government of Israel should reconsider the British Uganda Program that was proposed to the Zionist Congress in 1903. Why don't we in invite the representatives from Uganda and Kenya to offer their views on that?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, March 18, 2008.

This was written by Jeff Jacoby for the Boston Globe It is called "It's still a question of Wright and wrong." Contact him by e-mail at jacoby@globe.com.

I HAVE known my rabbi for more than 20 years. The synagogue he serves as spiritual leader is one I have attended for a quarter-century. He officiated at my wedding and was present for the circumcision of each of my sons. Over the years, I have sought his advice on matters private and public, religious and secular. I have heard him speak from the pulpit more times than I can remember.

My relationship with my rabbi, in other words, is similar in many respects to Barack Obama's relationship with his longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright. But if my rabbi began delivering sermons as toxic, hate-filled, and anti-American as the diatribes Wright has preached at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, I wouldn't hesitate to demand that he be dismissed.

Were my rabbi to gloat that America got its just desserts on 9/11, or to claim that the US government invented AIDS as an instrument of genocide, or to urge his congregants to sing "God Damn America" instead of "God Bless America," I would know about it straightaway, even if I hadn't actually been in the sanctuary when he spoke. The news would spread rapidly through the congregation, and in short order one of two things would happen: Either the rabbi would be gone, or I and scores of others would walk out, unwilling to remain in a house of worship that tolerated such poisonous teachings. I have no doubt that the same would be true for millions of worshipers in countless houses of worship nationwide.

But it wasn't true for Obama, whose long and admiring relationship with Wright, a man he describes as his "mentor", remained intact for more than 20 years, notwithstanding the incendiary and bigoted messages the minister used his pulpit to promote.

In Philadelphia yesterday, Obama gave a graceful speech on the theme of race and unity in American life. Much of what he said was eloquent and stirring, not least his opening paean to the Founders and the Constitution –– a document "stained by the nation's original sin of slavery," as he said, yet also one "that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time." There was an echo there of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who in his great "I Have a Dream" speech extolled "the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence" as "a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir."

The problem for Obama is that Wright, the spiritual leader he has so long embraced, is a devotee not of King, –– who in that same speech warned against "drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred" –– but of the poisonous hatemonger Louis Farrakhan, whom the church's magazine honored with a lifetime achievement award. The problem for Obama, who campaigns on a message of racial reconciliation, is that the "mentor" whose church he joined and has generously supported is a disciple not of King but of James Cone, founder of a "black liberation" theology that teaches its adherents to "accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."

Above all, the problem for Obama is that for two decades his spiritual home has been a church in which the minister damns America to the enthusiastic approval of the congregation, and not until it threatened to scuttle his political ambitions did Obama finally find the mettle to condemn the minister's odium.

When Don Imus uttered his infamous slur on the radio last year, Obama cut him no slack. Imus should be fired, he said. "There's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group."

When it came to Wright, however, he wasn't nearly so categorical. Oh, he's "like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with," Obama indulgently explained to one interviewer. He's just "trying to be provocative," he told another." Far from severing his ties to Wright, Obama made him a member of his Religious Leadership Committee –– a tie he finally cut only four days ago."

Such a clanging double standard raises doubts about Obama's character and judgment, and about his fitness for the role of race-transcending healer. Yesterday's speech was finely crafted, but it leaves some troubling questions unanswered.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 18, 2008.

The things to be concerned about, that is.

This morning's Jerusalem Post carried an exclusive by Khaled Abu Toameh regarding a new PA "plan" –– drawn up by high-ranking Fatah member and PA Deputy Minister for Prisoner Affairs Ziad Abu Ein –– to implement the "right of return" for Israel's 60th celebrations.

The plan –– called the "Initiative of Return and Coexistence" –– proposes that the two-state negotiations be abandoned in favor of "all living together."

It calls for Palestinian refugees everywhere to converge on Israel by land, sea and air, on May 14, carrying UN flags and their UNRWA ID cards (which theoretically certify them as refugees). They are supposed to bring their suitcases, and tents so that they can settle down in the towns and villages they (actually their parents and grandparents) came from sixty years ago –– never mind that these places no longer exist.

Neighboring Arab states are supposed to open their borders so the "refugees" can get out and make their way to Israel, and Arab states are asked to contribute to costs. The UN secretary-general and other world leaders are asked to support this effort, which calls upon the refugees to abandon terrorism and "live in peace" with their Israeli neighbors (yea, sure).

And Ramallah is said to be in favor.


You read this, and you said, "Oi vey!" or some equivalent thereof. A most worrisome scenario, one would think.

When I checked with representatives of the prime minister's office and the Foreign Ministry today, I encountered a very relaxed attitude. Who knows if this is even true, they responded.

My most knowledgeable source regarding events within the PA advised me that the plan has indeed been proposed but that Fatah is "too tired," they haven't the energy to pull off anything like this. However, said my source, if Iran, perhaps, should decide to make this happen, and energize it, it might be different. I will add that there might also be other outside energizing forces.


So? Does this get taken seriously? As to actually having the hordes of refugees attempt entry into the country, I am assuming that intelligence would secure information of preparations in advance, and would respond appropriately. It wouldn't be pretty, but we wouldn't have millions of purported refugees suddenly within our borders.

But there's another factor to be considered, and another motivation for what they are talking about: They are out to embarrass us, and make us uncomfortable, and bring us down a few more notches in public opinion, by threatening this. The poor refugees. After all these years, still denied the right to go "home." They are masters at this.

We are, sadly, not masters, as has been demonstrated time and again. Now is the time to make clear that the demands are not legitimate –– to call upon experts in international law who will explain that there is no such thing as a right of return, and to put on the agenda of the international community the need to find an equitable solution for these "refugees." Now is the time to point a finger at the oil-rich Arab states that have donated only very modest sums to UNRWA for support of their fellow Arabs –– the very rich Arab states who gladly allowed them to wallow in misery.


UNRWA, of course, bears enormous responsibility for the current situation. UNRWA, whose mandate says that these refugees remain refugees until they return to Israel (even if they have citizenship elsewhere). UNRWA, who has allowed these people to hang in limbo for three and now four generations, and who has told them that they have this right and that Israel prevents them from exercising it.


In a nutshell: UNRWA, which is responsible for the Palestinian refugees, works with rules that are different from the rules of the High Commission for Refugees, an agency that handles all of the refugees of the world except the Palestinians. Only the Palestinians are so special that they get their own agency and their own rules. The High Commission has a practice of getting refugees settled as quickly as possible –– in the nation of origin if possible, but if not possible, elsewhere. They solve refugee situations. UNRWA not only sustains their refugee population, but has allowed it to grow (to over 4 million now) because descendants are counted, as are those who have new citizenship elsewhere.

The "right to return" is based on General Assembly resolution 194, which says, among other things, that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date." This, the claim is made, is the basis in international law for the "right.

There is just a small catch: General Assembly resolutions are considered to be recommendations only, they have no standing in international law. Only security council resolutions do.

What is more, when this resolution passed in 1948, the Arab states voted against it because it mentions Israel and they refused to acknowledge the existence of Israel. Oh irony!


"[The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death like you desire life.'"

So said Hamas MP Fathi Hammad on an Al Aqsa (Hamas) TV broadcast of February 29.

"...they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly..."

MEMRI has captured this and provided translation. I encourage you to see this for yourselves at: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1710.htm

You can order the clip, or view a transcript, as well as viewing Hammad on the MEMRITV site.

Bookmark this particular MEMRI site, please, and share the URL broadly. The next time we are accused of wantonly killing civilians, reference should be made to this. In this way each of you can be an emissary on behalf of Israel –– writing letters to the editor citing this, and telling those who do not understand.

(MEMRI –– Middle East Media Research Institute –– is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that "bridges the language gap between the West and the Middle East.")


MEMRI captured yet another Palestinian speaking on TV on March 9. This time it was Qadura Fares, former PA minister and close confident of Marwan Barghouti, speaking about the massacre at Mercaz Harav. He said: "The Fatah movement does not denounce this kind of operation, and the Palestinian people has the right to conduct resistance against the occupation."

Mark well this statement from a member of the "moderate" Palestinian faction.


Fatah officials announced today that they were ready to begin a dialogue with Hamas, if Hamas accepts the Yemeni initiative for reconciliation. A major Hamas official later said that his group did accept it, but it is still a bit unclear as to precisely what Hamas has agreed to. The initiative calls for returning Gaza to its status before the Hamas takeover and for early elections. It further calls for a unity government similar to what was forged at Mecca and security forces built on a national basis (meaning incorporating members of both groups).

This, just possibly, could be Abbas's answer to being squeezed by Rice, who demands that he sit with Israel while there are Israeli operations against Hamas in Gaza; it could save him from his increasingly weak position. And this may suit Hamas exceedingly well right now, as well: It would gain legitimacy and see the end to the siege of Gaza. The fact that Hamas was willing to talk about a ceasefire means it, too, is hurting.

Both groups now have delegations in Yemen and will be meeting with Yemen officials separately.

Big stuff. Let's see...


It should be noted here that in a poll just taken, Ismail Haniyeh (Hamas) would beat Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah) if elections for president were held in Judea and Samaria, and Gaza, now.


Olmert is holding tight in the face of the expressed concerns of US Ambassador to Israel Richard Jones regarding building in eastern Jerusalem. I find particularly charming the Jones statement that: "It is not easy for either side to move ahead when they see the provocative behavior of the other side." Notice the fine, even handed balance that equates support for a terrorist massacre by the PA with building housing units for Jews in eastern Jerusalem.

In a statement to the press, with regard to the building of more housing units in Har Homa, Olmert said, "Everyone knows that there is no chance that the State of Israel will give up a neighborhood like ... Har Homa. It is an inseparable part of Jerusalem."

To which Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat declared, "This is totally unacceptable."


Livni and Qurei were supposed to re-start peace talks today, but after Qurei heard about Olmert's remarks regarding Har Homa, he downgraded the meeting to "unofficial," saying the Palestinians would not agree to Israel adding a "single brick" to eastern Jerusalem.


John McCain is here and has been welcomed very warmly.

So is German Chancellor Angela Merkel here on an historic visit, which I'd like to discuss in some more detail tomorrow.

Also, tomorrow, if time and space allow, more on our relationship with the Arabs living in Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, March 18, 2008.

This is a news item from today's Israel Today

US Ambassador to Israel Richard Jones suggested during a tour of overcrowded Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem on Monday that many Jews will just have to move out of the capital rather than expand into parts of the city claimed by the Palestinians.

Jones told said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post that Washington is growing increasingly displeased with Jewish housing projects on the eastern side of Jerusalem, which are certain to hinder efforts to conclude a peace deal along the lines of US President George W. Bush's vision for the region.

The American envoy said he is well aware of the lack of Jewish housing in Jerusalem, but in a remark betraying a lack of understanding regarding Jewish historical and spiritual connection to the city Jones concluded that "sometimes people do have to move to a different location. They cannot always stay close to their families."

He insisted that more important than the Jews' restoration to their biblical capital and heartland is Israel's implementation of commitments made as part of the US-driven Road Map peace process, even if unreciprocated by the Palestinians.

Jones ended the interview by all but justifying the Palestinian Authority's ongoing failure to meet its primary obligations to curb anti-Israel violence and incitement by stating that "it is not easy for either side to move ahead when they see the provocative behavior of the other side."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 18, 2008.

Press Release Israel Antiquities Authority

A Silver Coin That Was Used To Pay The Half Shekel Head-Tax To The Temple Was Found In The Main Drainage Channel Of Jerusalem From The Second Temple Period

"A reminder of the half shekel" is also paid today as a donation to the poor, before reading the Scroll of Esther at Purim

This coming Thursday, before reading the Scroll of Esther, all devote Jews will contribute a sum of money –– "a reminder of the half shekel" –– which is a tradition that took root in the wake of the ancient virtuous deed of paying a tax of one half shekel to the Temple. This sum, which was used in the past for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the temple, is translated into a contemporary amount and donated to the needy

In an archaeological excavation that is being conducted in the main drainage channel of Jerusalem from the time of the Second Temple, in the City of David, in the Walls around Jerusalem National Park, an ancient rare silver coin was recently discovered. This coin is a shekel denomination that was customarily used to pay a half shekel head-tax in the Second Temple period. The excavations, directed by Eli Shukron of the Israel Antiquities Authority and Professor Ronny Reich of the University of Haifa, are being conducted on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, the Nature and Parks Authority and the 'Ir David Foundation.

Archaeologist Eli Shukron estimates that, "Just like today when coins sometimes fall from our pockets and roll into drainage openings at the side of the street, that's how it was some two thousand years ago –– a man was on his way to the Temple and the shekel which he intended to use for paying the half shekel head-tax found its way into the drainage channel".

The origin of the commandment to pay the half shekel head-tax to the Temple is in the weekly Biblical reading "Ki Tisa", in the Book of Exodus: "When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for himself to the Lord when you number them.half a shekel.the rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less.and you shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel and shall appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting; that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the Lord, so as to make atonement for yourselves".

At the time of the temple's construction, every Jew was commanded to make an obligatory donation of a half shekel to the edifice. This modest sum allowed all Jews, of all economic levels, to participate in the building the Temple. After the construction was completed, they continued to collect the tax from every Jew for the purpose of purchasing the public sacrifices and renewing the furnishings of the Temple. The collection occurred every year on the first day of the month of Adar when the "heralding of the shekelim" took place, that is to say the beginning of the collection of the money and it ended on the first day of the month of Nissan, when 'there is a new budget' in the temple and the purchase of public sacrifices was renewed.

It was most likely a sheqel of Tyre that Jesus and Peter used to pay the Temple head tax (a half sheqel each): "Go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money. That take, and give unto them for me and thee" (Matthew 17:27). Moreover, Tyrian silver coins probably comprised the infamous payment to Judas Iscariot, when "they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver" (Matthew 26:15).

The annual half shekel head-tax was donated in shekels and half shekels from the Tyre mint where they were struck from the year 125 BCE until the outbreak of the Great Revolt in 66 CE. At the time of the uprising, the tax was paid using Jerusalem shekelim, which were specifically struck for this purpose. In the rabbinic sources, the Tosefta (Ketubot 13:20) states "Silver mentioned in the Pentateuch is always Tyrian silver: What is Tyrian silver? It is Jerusalemite." Many have interpreted this to mean that only Tyrian shekels could be used to pay the half shekel head-tax at the Jerusalem temple.

The shekel that was found in the excavation weighs 13 grams, bears the head of Melqart, the chief deity of the city of Tyre on the obverse (equivalent to the Semitic god Baal) and an eagle upon a ship's prow on the reverse. The coin was struck in the year 22 CE.

Despite the importance of the half-shekel head-tax for the economy of Jerusalem in the Second Temple period, only seven other Tyrian shekels and half shekels were heretofore found in the excavations in Jerusalem.

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 18, 2008.


Antisemitic regulars on Internet seized upon the errant Gov. Spitzer's being Jewish to condemn all Jews. They brought Israel into the negative spotlight by stating that, according to the NY Times, he has an Israeli passport and so did another of the johns. (I searched through the Times of 3/10, but didn't find mention of Israel.)

Quite a few people were involved in the prostitution ring and its clientele. Presumably most of them are not Jews. Does this mean that all gentiles are of poor moral character? Of course not. Then why should the misconduct of one Jew, a misconduct that is not condoned by Judaism, be thought to reflect a lack of ethics by all Jews? Silly, aren't those antisemites?

One of their chief fallacies is to assume that all people supposedly Jewish have the same views and behavior. Unfortunately, the Jewish people are divided, these days. A large proportion is not observant or not loyal to their people. Those disloyal ones plot –– the antisemites always accuse the Jews of plotting –– but they plot against Israel. Many others are just confused. They don't know what is good for Israel.

Elliot Spitzer was an arrogant, self-centered, bullying, unethical hypocrite who betrayed his wife. He certainly did not think of the example he set for fellow Jews and the shame he brings to them by other people drawing generalizations about Jews from his misconduct.

The antisemites remind us that for a while, he was thought to be an eventual contender for President, and, if successful, the first Jew in that office. What is Jewish about him but his origin? Even before the latest scandal, he did not represent me. I think it wrong and foolish for Jews to vote for Jews because they are Jews. If one must be prejudiced, vote against Jews, because usually Jewish officials bend over backwards to show that they do not favor their own ethnic group. Sen. Lieberman was known for his probity and for being Orthodox. Then he ran for the vice-presidency. He diluted his religious observance and he advocated a couple of policies contrary to Judaism. That isn't ethical, that is mendacious pandering. He set a misleading example for Jewish youth. I'm glad he wasn't elected. Having returned to the Senate, he once again thinks for himself and proposes policies that may be wise but are unpopular in his Party.

Spitzer disgraced himself. Critics who try to distribute his guilt upon the Jewish people disgrace themselves. They lie to hurt innocent people. I think they are twisted inside.


Pres. Clinton released Puerto Rican terrorists under sordid circumstances.

The terrorists did not ask for clemency; it was Clinton's idea. He did not follow federal guidelines, which require contrition; the terrorists were unrepentant. Nor did Clinton demand their cooperation in unsolved cases involving their organization. The FBI advised that clemency would encourage terrorism. The White House referred to the prisoners as political prisoners, though they had murdered and maimed innocent people. The White House prepared talking points in a campaign to get the releases accepted.

The NY Times explained it at the time as a bid for the Hispanic vote in New York, where Clinton's wife was running for the US Senate. When Congress tried to investigate, Clinton invoked executive privilege (IMRA, 2/25).


Apparently Israel has developed the ability to strike down terrorists, even through buildings, without inflicting as much collateral damage as formerly. It can respond fast enough to strike some crews before they fire rockets. It can detect explosives at a distance, and can change the direction of a missile.


This is part of the P.A. plan to become less dependent upon Israel, so Israel can't pressure it by cutting off services (IMRA, 2/25).

Israel should have exerted strong pressure while it had the means.


Several states now allow drivers' license photographs to be of veiled women. They won't be easy for law enforcement personnel to identify (MEFNews, 2/25).


In Britain, Islamist extremism is replacing traditional Islamic medical ethics. Now Muslim medical students cut classes about treating diseases of alcoholism. Muslim doctors refuse to wash their hands with alcohol (which is not the drinking kind). They won't prescribe insulin made from pigs' intestine. The Muslim Brotherhood gets doctors radicalized. In Britain, they study medicine without the humanities that might challenge their extremism. Their medical groups divert funds to terrorism (Stephen Schwartz, MEFNews, 2/26).


Europe has rehabilitated Ghadaffi's reputation. He continued to persecute foreigners, Christians, etc., but released them for $400 million in ransom. His action was depicted as a new interest in human rights.

As for terrorism, he sent funds to the Philippines, to revive a failing Islamist insurrection. His son raised money for terrorists in Mosul.

Then why does Europe welcome him back into the society of the civilized? He has contracts to give them (MEFNews, 2/28).


P.A. police confiscated 300 stolen cars in Hebron, and demolished them. The Mayor welcomed that as restoration of law and order. If law-abiding, shouldn't the P.A have returned cars to Israel, from which they were stolen (IMRA, 2/28).


Just outside the Old City of Jerusalem were found pottery shards and a seal written in Hebrew from the 8th century before the common era (IMRA, 2/29).


In its report on Syria, the foundation described Syria as a small country merely trying to exert some influence in its region. The report omitted UNO resolutions critical of Syria. It omitted the head of Syria admitting a desire to regain hegemony over Lebanon. It omitted Syria's role in promoting terrorism against Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq. It described the proposed UNO tribunal investigating and perhaps prosecuting the murder of Lebanese leader Hariri as if the US were in the wrong for supporting it, and excused Syrian reaction as understandably paranoid. Actually, Syria obviously has been liquidating Lebanese opponents.

The report ascribes no significance to N. Korea's assistance to Syrian in nuclear development. In blaming the US for problems with Syria, the report ignores UNO and French attempts to compromise with Syria, which responded with more assassinations.


The leftist ruling elite regularly passes on to their media accomplices false information about right-wing plots against the Arabs or against the Left. IMRA cited several examples besides a current one (IMRA, 3/12).


Sec. Rice says that the people of the P.A. are moderate and want peace. Nevertheless, 40% of those polled admitted that they favor suicide bombings in Israel. How many agree but won't admit they favor violence, too (IMRA, 3/12)?

Add to the 40% some more who would favor suicide bombings in the Territories and still others who favor other forms of combat.


Israel's Foreign Min. Livni told Sen. Obama that the warfare in Gaza is facilitated by smuggling of arms. Meanwhile, her policy is to accept a ceasefire with Hamas, during which it would have time to smuggle in more arms, in anticipation of the end of the ceasefire (IMRA, 3/12).

Rice and Livni pursue appeasement without regard to the facts, which they misrepresent. Have people caught on to their dishonesty and to the fallacy of their policy, bad for both countries?


The P.A. counted five children among those killed by Israeli planes in Gaza. The children, however, apparently were moving rocket launchers (IMRA, 2/29).

The number killed is unclear. The P.A. lies about the number of casualties, about military personnel being civilians, and that there is a great surge of population growth that really is a decline.


The US supported Musharrif, who mostly accommodated the jihadists and repressed anti-jihadists. He has been replaced by parties that mostly want to accommodate the jihadists. Al-Qaida and the Taliban are taking over more of Pakistan near Afghanistan, enabling them to fight harder in Afghanistan. Pakistani schools almost all promote jihad.

After supporting terrorist Arafat as moderate, the US supported terrorist Abbas as moderate. He boasts of helping found Palestinian Arab terrorism. He admits no policy difference with Hamas, and is not opposed to terrorism on ethical grounds, but he thinks that sometimes one can advance jihad more by negotiating concessions than only by combat. The US also supports Mubarak, who also favors jihad, so long as it is not against him. The US should support its reliable ally, Israel, against those enemies of the US (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 2/29).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Morgan, March 18, 2008.

This was written by Aaron Klein and it appeared February 26, 2008 in World Net Daily

Alarmed rabbis: Prime minister dividing Jerusalem Prominent Jewish leaders urge Israeli PM's partners to bolt government

JERUSALEM –– A group of hundreds of prominent Israeli rabbis this week urged a religious partner of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government to immediately bolt the Israeli leader's coalition amid rampant media reports Jerusalem is up for negotiations.

The rabbis warned that if the Orthodox Shas party remains in Olmert's government, they will urge Jews against supporting Shas. If the party bolts, Olmert's coalition government could fall apart, precipitating new elections.

"We are seriously considering issuing a statement signed by the hundreds of rabbis of the organization declaring it is absolutely forbidden for any observant Jew to vote for a party that lent its support to a government that negotiated the division of Jerusalem, a move that will place the entire population in Israel in mortal danger," Rabbi Avrohom Shmuel Lewin, director general of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace, told WND.

The Congress is a coalition of more than 350 Israeli rabbinic leaders and pulpit rabbis.

Olmert repeatedly has insisted Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are not dealing with the status of Jerusalem, while Palestinian leaders, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abba, and many Israeli officials, including Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, stated in recent weeks negotiations are covering all core issues, including Jerusalem.

The Israeli Shas party has stated it would bolt the prime minister's coalition if it becomes clear the Israeli government is negotiating the ceding of any part of Jerusalem. Shas' departure could collapse Olmert's government.

Olmert must maintain a majority of the Knesset's 120 seats to continue ruling. He currently rules with a slight plurality. If Shas, with its 12 seats, bolts the government, Olmert would be forced to forge a new coalition or face new elections. Most analysts here believe if Shas does bolt, Olmert could only stay in power if he invites Arab parties to his government, a move that would be considered highly controversial.

Shas denies Jerusalem is being discussed during weekly Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which commenced after last November's U.S.-sponsored Annapolis summit.

"Nobody is talking about Jerusalem. The moment Jerusalem is being discussed, Shas will leave the government –– period," Shas Spokesman Roi Lachmanovitch told Israel National News.

A Rabbinical Congress for Peace statement issued after an emergency meeting yesterday countered: "Every novice journalist and anyone listening to the news in Israel knows that giving up large chunks of Jerusalem has been on the negotiating table for quite some time and is in its advanced stages. Only the representatives of Shas are burying their heads in the ground and pretend they know of nothing."

"They are lying to themselves and deceiving their electorate. The Shas ministers know that Olmert and Abbas have agreed not to make public any agreement on Jerusalem until after the final signature in order to keep Shas in the government," said the RCP statement.

The statement was signed by scores of prominent rabbinic leaders here.

Since the Annapolis summit, which aimed to create a Palestinian state before the end of the year, senior negotiating teams including Livni and chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia have been meeting weekly while Olmert and Abbas meet biweekly.

Unlike previous Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in which both sides attended with about a dozen advisors each, Livni's and Quereai's teams are small, usually consisting at most of five people each. Media leaks from the current negotiations have been rare. Some momentum is highly expected before a visit Bush has scheduled to Israel in May, his second trip since Annapolis.

Olmert's government has hinted a number of times it will divide Jerusalem and reportedly has halted all Jewish construction permits for eastern sections of the city.

In December, Israeli Vice Premier Haim Ramon said the country "must" give up sections of Jerusalem for a future Palestinian state, even conceding the Palestinians can rename Jerusalem "to whatever they want."

"We must come today and say, friends, the Jewish neighborhoods, including Har Homa, will remain under Israeli sovereignty, and the Arab neighborhoods will be the Palestinian capital, which they will call Jerusalem or whatever they want," said Ramon during an interview.

Positions held by Ramon, a ranking member of Olmert's Kadima party, are largely considered to be reflective of Israeli government policy.

Olmert himself recently questioned whether it was "really necessary" to retain Arab-majority eastern sections of Jerusalem.

Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount –– Judaism's holiest site –– during the 1967 Six Day War. The Palestinians have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital; the area has large Arab neighborhoods, a significant Jewish population and sites holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

About 231,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, and many reside in illegally constructed complexes. The city has an estimated total population of 724,000.

Olmert to blame for dividing Jerusalem?

Ramon listed population statistics as the reason Olmert's government finds it necessary to split Jerusalem.

But WND broke the story that according to Jerusalem municipal employees, during 10 years as mayor of Jerusalem, Olmert instructed city workers not to take action against hundreds of illicit Arab building projects throughout eastern sections of Jerusalem housing over 100,000 Arabs squatting in the city illegally.

The workers and some former employees claim Olmert even instructed city officials to delete files documenting illegal Arab construction of housing units in eastern Jerusalem.

Olmert was Jerusalem mayor from 1993 to 2003. As mayor, he made repeated public statements calling Jerusalem the "eternal and undivided capital" of Israel. Jerusalem municipal employees and former workers, though, paint a starkly contrasting picture of the prime minister.

"He did nothing about rampant illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem while the government cracked down on illegal Jewish construction in the West Bank," said one municipal employee who worked under Olmert. She spoke on condition of anonymity, because she still works for the municipality.

One former municipal worker during Olmert's mayoral tenure told WND he was moved in 1999 to a new government posting after he tried to highlight the illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem. He also spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing for his current job.

Aryeh King, chairman of the Jerusalem Forum, which promotes Jewish construction in Jerusalem, told WND an investigation by his group found Olmert's city hall deleted files documenting hundreds of illegal Arab building projects throughout eastern sections of Jerusalem. He said he forwarded his findings to Israel's state comptroller for investigation.

King also claims Olmert told senior municipal workers not to enforce a ban on illegal Arab buildings.

"Ehud Olmert gave the order not to deal with the problem and not to put Israeli security forces to the duty of taking down the illegal Arab complexes," said King. "Senior municipal workers told me Olmert said not to bother with the illegal Arab homes, because eventually eastern Jerusalem would be given to the Palestinian Authority."

King's report alleges Jerusalem municipal officials erased the files, which detail over 300 cases of Arab construction in eastern Jerusalem deemed illegal starting from 1999. The illegal buildings reportedly were constructed without permits and are still standing. According to law, they must be demolished.

Local media reports investigating King's charges alleged the files were erased by Ofir May, the head of Jerusalem's Department of Building Permits, with the specific intention of allowing the statute of limitation on enforcing the demolition of the illegal construction to run out.

The Jerusalem municipality released a statement in response to the allegations claiming the threat of Arab violence kept it from bulldozing the illegal Arab homes.

"During the years of the intifada, the municipality had difficulty carrying out the necessary level of enforcement in the neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem due to security constraints," the statement read.

King said the hundreds of buildings allegedly detailed in the deleted municipal files house more than 20,000 illegal units.

"We're talking about perhaps 100,000 or more Arabs in eastern Jerusalem living in illegal homes with the government doing nothing about it," King said.

Contact Margan at morgan_k@earthlink.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, March 18, 2008.
f we had thought up something similar, like ... Jews the world over, UNITE and return to your ancestral home... it is after all YOUR land and the Land Of Your Fathers, then that would have been an attention getter, which would receive little notice. But with clever little terrorists, making their mark on the world through murder, extortion, manipulation, etc, the Savages who were expelled for Jordan, Kuwait ? Lebanon, and whom our clever liberal and communist politicians brought here to make peace, we have a world virtually catering to their every move and demand. The fact that the Sudanese, and other Arab, and none Arab, nations have greater, and more unjust problems, is ignored, or shelved, while the palastinian issue is headline material on a daily basis and has been for decades. Now this...

This is a news item in today's Arutz-Sheva

(IsraelNN.com) The Palestinian Authority (PA) is embarking on a campaign to encourage Arabs in foreign countries to bring their possessions with them and try to enter Israel towards the 60th anniversary of the modern state. The plan brings to the forefront the so-called "right of return" issue, which refers to more than five million foreign Arabs who claim to be descendants of Arabs who fled Israel during the War of Independence. Arab nations urged them to leave with the intention of their returning after the expected annihilation of the fledgling Jewish state.

The international community refers to the foreign Arabs as refugees, and the terminology and their lack of facilities provided by foreign countries have provided the PA with the foundations of a public relations campaign to arouse sympathy for their cause. Israel has totally rejected allowing the mass immigration, which would effectively end the Jewish majority in the country. The PA has encouraged them to arrive in Israel on planes and by boats with United Nations flags as a sign they are without a country.

"Fulfilling the right of return is a human, moral and legal will that can't be denied by the Jews or the international community," according to the PA plan, drawn up by prisoners affairs minister Ziad Abu Ein. "On the [60th] anniversary of the great suffering, the Palestinian people are determined to end this injustice."

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. View his beautiful photographic art at his blogs such as

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, March 17, 2008.

This was written by Rav Lazar Brody. It appeared on his website and is archived at

LEFT: Doron Mahareta

Doron Mahareta (left) of blessed and saintly memory HY"D was one of the eight Yeshiva students that were massacred last week in Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav in Jerusalem.

Last night, I paid a shiva (condolence) call to Doron's family. Every single type of Jew was sitting together, from Ethiopians to Polish Chassidim, from knit kippot to Yerushalmi white kippot, from jeans and sandals to long black frocks. Too bad that it takes a martyr of Doron's magnitude to unite everyone.

One of the rabbis from Mercaz HaRav told me the most amazing story you'll ever hear about Doron's dedication to learning Torah, a story that competes with the Gemara's account of Hillel's near freezing on the roof of Shmaya and Avtalion's Yeshiva (see tractate Yoma, 35b).

Doron wanted to learn Torah in Mercaz HaRav, one of the best of Israel's yeshivas. But, since his early schooling was in Ethiopia, he lacked a strong background in Gemara. The Yeshiva rejected him. He wasn't discouraged. He asked, "If you won't let me learn Torah, will you let me wash the dishes in the mess hall?" For a year and a half, Doron washed dishes. But, he spent every spare minute in the study hall. He inquired what the yeshiva boys were learning, and spent most of the nights and all of his Shabbatot with his head in the Gemara learning what they learned. One day, the "dish washer" asked the Rosh Yeshiva to test him. The Rosh Yeshiva politely smiled and tried to gently dismiss Doron, but Doron wouldn't budge. He forced the Rosh Yeshiva into a Torah discussion; the next day, he was no longer a dish washer but a full-fledged "yeshiva bachur".

On weekends, when Doron would come home to visit his family in Ashdod, he'd spend the entire Shabbat either in the Melitzer Shul or the neighboring Gerrer shtiebel learning Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries. Three weeks ago, he finished the entire Shulchan Aruch and principle commentaries. Doron achieved in his tender 26 years what others don't attain in 88 years. He truly was an unblemished sacrifice, who gave his life for all of us.

Jewish Ethiopian clerics attend the funeral of yeshiva student Doron (Trunoch) Mahareta, 26, in Ashdod. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)

The next time you want to close the Gemara to watch TV, think of Doron. The next time your son doesn't want to do his Torah homework, tell him about the price that tzaddikim like Hillel the Elder and Doron Mahareta paid to learn Torah. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Doron wasn't a reincarnation of Hillel. May his holy soul beg mercy for the grieving nation he left behind, amen. http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/319336/27045698

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Bedein, March 17, 2008.

It's been 12 days since an Arab terrorist from Jerusalem sprayed more than 500 bullets into the library of Jerusalem's finest yeshiva and mowed down 8 young men while they were learning Talumd at the Rabbi Kook Taldmudic Academy, which is considered to be the Harvard of Israel's Yeshiva seminary system.

We knew Avraham David Moses, 16, who lived in our community of Efrat, since he was a little boy.

His family described how Avraham David never wanted to miss a moment of studying Torah.

Avraham David and his chevruta (learning partner), Segev Avichayil went to study together quietly until the celebrations of the new month of Adar, the month of Purim,. were scheduled to begin.

When the terrorist entered the library, Avraham David and Segev were so immersed in learning that their friends had to yell to both of them to run for their lives.

Avraham David loved coming home to learn Torah with his father, Naftali. who cherished those precious moments of learning with his son. At the funeral, Naftali recalled that the last matter that they learned together was the Talmudic tractate dealing with the deceased before the burial and how the Onen, the person who is bereaved before the burial of his relative –– is exempt from observing the commandments.

Naftali said at his son's grave that Avraham David found it hard to grasp how there could be a situation for whatever reason that one would be exempt from observing God's commandments.

At Avraham David's funeral, another family member recalled how when the yeshiva let the students out on a Friday before the big snowstorm and told them they need not return until Wednesday because of the snow, how Avraham David took his backpack and prepared to return to the yeshivah on Sunday.

When asked what he was doing, he simply said that he wanted to study.

But where will you sleep, he was asked. Avraham David said that he packed a sleeping bag and that perhaps he'd find a place to sleep in the yeshivah where the post-collegiate students were studying.

In terms of his custom of prayer, Avraham David was careful to get up every morning for morning prayers at the crack of dawn. One of his friends told the family that once he found a note written by one of his roommates asking for consideration towards those who do not get up at such an early hour. From that time on, for a nearly a month, Avraham David took his mattress and blankets out on the grass on the yeshivah's premises and would sleep until the sprinklers woke him up. He soon learned where to put down his mattress where the sprinklers wouldn't drench him..

At home, Avraham David was always eager to help in the Sabbath preparations at home. When he was asked to peel the vegetables, he would do so with an open Torah book in front of him so that you could study Torah and peel at the same time. His mother got you a book stand to make it easier for you to do peel vegetables and learn Torah at one and the same time.

During the seven days of mourning, family members of Avraham David told his young friends how much they enjoyed studying the Talmud with him you and how easily the learning flowed from him.

Avraham David's step father remarked that "Since his understanding was of such a high level, so as not to be embarrassed that you caught on so much quicker than me, I would always prepare the chapter before learning with you".

His stepfather also remarked that "after seeing you in prayer could not help but be impressed. You uttered each word unhurriedly and with devotion... Avraham David was also careful of lason hara (speaking evil of others)and ran away from it as if it were fire. A friend told us: At times when we spoke idle conversation in our dorm room, talk that Avraham Dovid considered to be lashon hara, you would just get up and leave the room. You would not return until you were convinced that the conversation had ended".

Avraham David and his study partner, Segev Avichayil, were mortally wounded while they studied Talmud together.

To make sure that they were dead, the terrorist added a coups de grace bullet in the back of the neck of each one of his victims.

Since Jewish law mandates that a defiled holy book must also be buried, their blood-soaked Talmud was buried with them.

David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency. (http://Israelbehindthenews.com). He is president of Center for Near East Policy Research. Contact him by email at media@actcom.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, March 17, 2008.

The following may make sense to those who studied Israel's evolvement since 1948. I could go back further but, this is to be an article and not a 600 page book.

Every indication demonstrates that Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, his entourage and the corps of the Left started out with the idea of a "Two-State Solution" by evacuating Judea, Samaria and those parts of Jerusalem occupied and desecrated by Jordan for 19 years from 1948 to 1967. Jordan annexed Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem –– illegally –– a move recognized by only Great Britain and Muslim Pakistan.

The ill-gotten concept of a "Two-State Solution" gained form in the early 1980s when Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres started to confer (illegally) in the early 1980s with the father of today's "Jihadist" Terrorism, Yassir Arafat, to drive the Jews out of the territories Israel liberated in the 1967 Six Days' War. Arafat, Rabin and Peres wanted the Jews to turn over all housing, farms, infrastructure, water, electric grids, roads, etc. to the incoming Arab Muslim Palestinians who were to be ejected from Jordan, Syria, Iran and Lebanon into vacated territory. That same plan remained under Oslo and is now extended under the "Road Map" for Judea, Samaria and those parts of Jerusalem illegally occupied by Jordan, only recognized by Great Britain and Muslim Pakistan.

This was in the belief that the Arab Muslims could be pacified with assets built by the Jews and taken from the Jews, including their ancient G-d given Land. This was an unproven idea merely thought up by Peres, Yossi Beilin and various Leftist academics which was sold to Yitzhak Rabin. This was mostly pre-Olso but it morphed into the full Oslo Accords, negotiated in secret and signed September 13, 1993 on the White House lawn.

They believed they could appease Muslim Arab Palestinians and take revenge on observant Jewish settlers whom they considered their ideological adversaries. In fact, the Leftists of the elite who controlled the government, the Media and the Courts were driven more by a visceral hatred of fellow observant Jews than the Arab Muslims who pledged to destroy them all.

That hatred blossomed from the time of David Ben Gurion who planned to control all government functions to insure that observant Jews would never come to political power. The political anger peaked in the Altalena attack where Ben Gurion gave the order to Yitzhak Rabin to sink the ship carrying Holocaust survivors and arms for the newly born country of Israel –– and Menachem Begin, who Ben Gurion considered was his chief rival for political power.

Rabin gave his men the order to shoot the Jews swimming from the sinking boat to shore. The attitude of the Left never changed, although it adopted more civilized forms of attack and control. Tragically, twenty Hebrew fighters were killed by their Jewish brethren and the arms lost.

Israel, at first, was to be one nation and homeland for the Jews and they fought many wars against attacking Arab and Muslim nations to keep her secure and sovereign. But, actually, Israel was always a politically divided nation from the beginning. There were the observant Jews who saw the Land as a gift from G-d who had redeemed His Promises to return the Jews to their Land which He had promised to Moshe, Avraham, Isaac and Jacob –– for the Jews in perpetuity.

Other (mostly secular) Jews –– particularly those of the Labor Left Party –– believed that de-Judaizing the Jewish nation of Israel would make Israel more acceptable to the other nations and the Arab Muslims. The theory being that Jews, therefore, would no longer be pursued and persecuted simply because they were Jews. From that time to this –– nothing changed and Jews believed the Land was sustained and thrived only under Jews as it always had.

THE BEN GURION DOCTRINE OF PACIFICATION which grew under his followers failed but the Left simply refused to recognize the reality of their failure. So, they continued to appease whenever possible. That policy morphed into a phase where the idea of a "divided State" was beginning to be spoken about by the Bush Administration and, regrettably, accepted by the Leftist elite.

The ruling elitists of the Left decided that the Land settled by observant Jews was to be traded for that elusive "peace" they longed for –– to be accepted and liked by the "others". The Land that was won in successive wars at great cost in lives and treasure which the Arab Muslims initiated with the proclaimed and stated intent of slaughtering all the Jews in Israel while occupying all the Land in Israel. The Muslims swore to "dance in the blood of the Jews" which was meant in its most literal sense.

The Left and non-observant Jews insisted that the Muslim Arabs could be appeased by gifts of Land or later as they adopted the catchy phrase: "Land for Peace". As it turned out, abandoning the Land did not bring peace but rather elevated the expectation that the Jews could be beaten because they were showing the weakness of a people ready to be conquered.

So the thoughts of a two-State solution as now pushed by the Bush Administration and the Europeans under the "Road Map" slogan began to morph into yet another phase: "The Single State". This, of course, was not shared with the Israeli people –– either Left or Right. Such plans were to have only a limited audience. Here we find the power elites of Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, President Shimon Peres and the founding families of Israel's three powerful newspapers, Ma'ariv, Yediot Ahronot and Ha'aretz. Add to that the Supreme Court –– selected and driven by Leftist doctrine.

The "Two-State" Solution clearly held different meanings for the Arab Muslims led by Yassir Arafat, his subsequent heirs (Abbas) and the Jews who created Oslo and the Gaza evacuation who thought they would get "Peace for Land".

The Arab Muslims never believed in "Two-States", living side-by-side but, IF the Americans and Europeans bought the sham, so much the better.

AFTER THE EXAMPLE OF SURRENDERING and evacuating the 10,000 Jewish men, women from the bountiful Gush Katif in Gaza, the concept of a "two-State Solution" was growing less viable. If Gaza, Judea and Samaria were to fall into the Hands of Fatah and Hamas among all the other Terrorists then the abandoned territories would become a firing base able to reach all of Israel...the west coastal lands with 70% of Israel's population and industrial base, the Ben Gurion International Airport and to the East –– the Eternal Holy Jewish Capital of Jerusalem since King David established it and King Solomon constructed the Holy Temple.

Now we enter a phase supported silently by Olmert and the Bush regime ... the "One-State" co-mingling Muslims and Jews. It was thought that, IF the ruling elite could de-Judaize the Jewish nation by making it a mix of Arab Muslims and non-Jewish Jews into one nation, then in theory the Muslim Arabs would have no reason to launch missiles. The idea of a "one-State solution" sounded good to the Left and American Arabists but, as always, ignored the Muslim Arabs goal to cleanse the Land of all non-Muslims –– especially Christians and Jews. A small example of this is Bethlehem and areas where Christian Arabs once lived but is now almost empty of Christians. The Muslims took over and simply drove them out. But, you haven't seen that story on television or in the newspapers, have you?

Imagine, if you will, the 3 to 5 million Muslim Arab Palestinians descendants flooding into Israel from Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq, etc. The original number who left Israel during the 1948 War for Independence was 650,000 out of 800,000 (leaving 140,000 Arabs) who lived west of the Jordan River. Now they count them up to five million. 850,000 Jews were driven out of all the Muslim Arab nations where they had lived for 2 centuries –– as "Dhimmis" (low, second class citizens) as they were under Muslim rule and Sharia Law.

The Leftists felt that, as non-Jews the Arab Muslims will live in peace as neighbor to neighbor and no longer despise the Jews. That as a single nation together, all will be well and peaceful. The naive and delusional Left wishes to believe that Koranic doctrine will not prevail and the Jews will be able to live as free men and women in a mixed society governed by Arabs and Jews. That the Jews and Christians will not become "Dhimmis". But, now they will be equal to Muslims under the Sharia Law.

I have little doubt that the Arabs will keep the productive Jews around because of their technical skills. Those not eliminated will become like docile cattle or well-fed slaves.

If one goes back in history, whenever the warriors of Islam conquered a nation, they fed on the accomplishments of a superior society and used them until they were used out. Then, all reverted to the backward society, ruled by Mullahs and Imams.

Would you care to guess at the time line that Jerusalem would be made Judenrein under the Islamists?

How long before the Temple Mount of King Solomon would become a Mosque –– as was done to the Burial Cave of the Machpelah where our forefathers and mothers are buried: Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Leah, Jacob and Rebecca?

How long before all the Jews now living free in Israel are driven out from their G-d given Land of their patriarchs or simply murdered in the joyous Genocide promised to their crazed Islamo-fascists, radical Muslims, "militant" Terrorists, Islamic leaders whose proclaimed goal is a Global Caliphate where everyone is ruled by Sharia Islam?

THIS IS THE LEGACY THAT OLMERT and his Leftists intend to leave their fellow Jews. This is what the Bush family, assisted by Condoleezza Rice and James Baker III wish to see in their lifetimes as the appeasement of the Arab Muslims –– for the sake of free flowing, oil at usurious prices.

If you confronted Ehud Olmert and his Leftist collaborators with the question: "How could you betray your Jewish "neshama" (soul), they would rush to have that soul surgically removed by an shaman (witch-doctor) who could claim they knew exactly where such a soul resides."

The idea of "one-State" devoid of her Jews is well underway, while the pretense of a "two-State Solution" for all her people is dangled in front of the Israeli people. Even a "Two-State Solution" would be merely a staged formula where the Jewish half would disappear, leaving one Muslim-dominated State.

For inexplicable reasons Jews must nurture a suicidal gene of avoidance –– except for some who truly understand the rich heritage their Judaism gives them and their families. A large number of Christians do not shut their eyes to the gathering of the nations against the Jewish State. They do not blind themselves to the fallibility of a President who claims to a born-again status, only to see him having fallen back into the pit from which he emerged –– IF he ever did.

Always in the shadows is James Baker III, the evil advisor to President Bush. Baker hates the Jewish State as if he is a modern day Inquisitor. Baker advised former President George Herbert Walker Bush; he advises George W. Bush; he advises the current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Baker is believed to be the original author of the infamous "Road Map" and now he is the Middle East advisor to the Presidential candidate John McCain.

So, what happens to nations that stick their finger in the Eye of G-d.

America's financial systems are in a state of free fall as the dollar crashes. Friday night a tornado ripped through the city of Atlanta. England and Spain, no special friends of Israel, experienced 80 MPH winds. There is more coming beyond wind and tornadoes quite soon. That will be payment for making the Jewish State another nation for Muslims to terrorize, wrap their women in full-length sheets, and shoot any people who disagree with their methods. That is a price no sane people will wish to pay.

As Olmert betrays Israel, Hezb'Allah, Hamas, Syria, Iran gets ready to assault the Jewish State with a saturation missile attack. (Yes, the Jewish State of Israel must suffer greatly because they allowed a hideous Jew-hating government to assault its own people and did nothing to stop them.)

One last reminder: During a battle between the Hebrews and the Canaanites, the Holy Ark of the Covenant was taken by the Philistines. Soon the Philistines began to die from a mysterious plague. The Philistines begged the Hebrews to take back the Ark. When it was back in the hands of the Hebrews, the plague stopped.

All of Israel is exactly like the Holy Ark of the Covenant. When parts of the Land are stolen or given away, a plague descends upon us –– or our enemies.

Sharon, Olmert and Bush surrendered Gaza and it turned into a plague for the Muslim Arabs and those Jews who gave it away.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 17, 2008.

This was written by Niko Koppel and it was printed yesterday in the New York Times

Services at Beth Shalom B'nai Zaken Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation in Chicago. (Sally Ryan, NYTimes)

Chicago –– Having grown up in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Capers C. Funnye Jr. was encouraged by his pastor to follow in his footsteps. Instead, he became a rabbi.

His congregation on the Far Southwest Side of Chicago is predominantly black, and while services include prayers and biblical passages in Hebrew, the worshipers sometimes break into song, swaying back and forth like a gospel choir.

As the first African-American member of the Chicago Board of Rabbis and of numerous mainstream Jewish organizations, Rabbi Funnye (pronounced fun-AY) is on a mission to bridge racial and religious divisions by encouraging Chicago's wider Jewish community to embrace his followers –– the more than 200 members of Beth Shalom B'nai Zaken Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation.

"I am a Jew," said Rabbi Funnye, "and that breaks through all color and ethnic barriers."

As a teenager, Rabbi Funnye said he felt disconnected and dissatisfied with his Methodist faith. He embarked on a spiritual journey, investigating other religions, including Islam, before turning to Judaism. He said he found a sense of intellectual and spiritual liberation in Judaism because it encourages constant examination. "The Jew has always questioned," he said.

Like their rabbi, a majority of Beth Shalom's members came to Judaism later in life, after wrestling with contradictions and questions that they found in their own earlier beliefs. Many refer to their religious experience as reversion, rather than conversion, and feel a cultural connection to the lost tribes of Israel. They say that Judaism has renewed their sense of personal identity.

There are no firm national statistics on the number of African-American Jews, said Gary Tobin, president of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research. Usually referred to as Israelites or Hebrews, they have historically been seen to stand apart in theology and observance from the nation's approximately 5.3 million Jews, mainly of Ashkenazi, or European, ancestry, and have largely been ignored by the broader Jewish community. Rabbi Funnye hopes to change that by speaking about his congregation at synagogues throughout Chicago and across the country.

"I believe that people cannot know you unless you make yourself known," he said. "The only way to do that is to step outside and not fear rejection."

To spread his message, he also serves on the boards of the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs and the American Jewish Congress of the Midwest. In addition, he is active in the Institute for Jewish and Community Research, focusing on reaching out to other communities of black Jews around the world, including the Falashas in Ethiopia and the Igbo in Nigeria.

Occupying a former Ashkenazi synagogue, Beth Shalom is in the Marquette Park neighborhood. It is just blocks from where Chicago's Nazi party used to march and where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was struck by a rock while protesting against segregated housing in 1966.

The congregation was founded in 1918 as the Ethiopian Hebrew Settlement Workers Association by Rabbi Horace Hasan from Bombay. Members include some Hispanics, African-Americans and whites who were born Jews, as well as former Christians and Muslims. In line with traditional Jewish law, Beth Shalom does not seek out converts, and members must study for a year before undergoing a traditional conversion ritual. Men are required to be circumcised, and women undergo a ritual bath in a mikvah.

Many worshipers feel that their devotion to Judaism is misunderstood.

"When the broader community thinks of a Jew," Dinah Levi said, "we don't fit the profile." Ms. Levi, 57, raised as a Baptist, is vice president of Beth Shalom, where she said she feels at home with spiritual elements that incorporate the African-American experience. "Since we are a varied people as written in the Torah," she said, "I think the religion can be embraced by a multitude of people."

Beth Shalom's service is somewhere between Conservative and Modern Orthodox observance with distinctive African-American influences. Men and women sit separately as the liturgy is read in English and Hebrew. Some members kiss their prayer shawls, pointing to the Torah, as is the practice in traditional synagogues. A chorus sings spirituals over the beat of a drum.

Across America, black congregations have been active since the early 20th century. In the past, efforts to reach out to the mainstream Jewish community have been met with suspicion and rejection, said Lewis R. Gordon, the director of the Center of Afro-Jewish Studies at Temple University. That is why many groups stay separatist, aligning themselves more with black nationalism than with traditional Jewish groups.

"People ask me, 'As if you aren't already in a bad enough situation being black, why would you want to be Jewish?' " said Tamar Manasseh, 29, a lifelong member of Beth Shalom.

Ms. Manasseh, wearing a Star of David around her neck, attended Jewish day school and is currently planning her daughter's bat mitzvah. "I can't change being Jewish just the same way I can't change being black," she said. Close to completing her rabbinic studies, she will be among the first black women to be ordained as a rabbi, according to Rabbi Funnye, her mentor.

After a Saturday service, Rabbi Funnye has a quiet moment in his office. On the wall is a 1930s black-and-white photograph of members of an African-American congregation. The men, all in prayer shawls, look out before an opened Torah. "We're not going anywhere," said Rabbi Funnye, smiling confidently, "I'm going to reach out until you reach back."

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 17, 2008.

This is a news item from the Israel Justice website

JERUSALEM –– Israeli police have acknowledged that they grabbed demonstrators off the streets of Jerusalem for no reason.

Police told a Jerusalem court judge that many of the 22 protesters, most of them minors, were arrested in a March 16 protest without cause. The judge then released the youngsters, who had been accused by the police of resisting arrest.

"Everyone's crime was resisting arrest, but why were they arrested in the first place," Jerusalem Magistrate Malka Aviv asked on March 17.

A police official said he did not know.

"Then, you're free to go," the judge said.

Police arrested 22 people in a demonstration outside the Jerusalem neighborhood of Jabal Mukhaber, where the Arab who killed eight Jewish seminary students had lived. Some of the protesters managed to slip

past police cordons and throw stones at the homes of Arabs in the neighborhood after police prevented them from reaching the family home of the assailant, Ala Abu Dheim, who was killed in the March 6 shooting attack in the Mercaz Harav seminary in Jerusalem.

"They [the protesters] were standing there talking about the boys that were killed In Mercaz Harav when a policewoman laughed at them," I. K., mother of a 15 year-old boy who was arrested, said. "My son went over to her and right away they arrested him."

Some of the Jewish stone-throwers were arrested in Jabal Mukhaber. At that point, police commanders, under severe criticism for failing to stop the entry of the protesters into the Arab neighborhood, began to attack peaceful demonstrators in the adjacent Jewish neighborhood of Armon HaNatziv.

"They [the police] were lined up and all of a sudden they broke ranks and started pushing people," an American seminary student, D. K., recalled. "I started running and then they grabbed me. They said I assaulted a police officer and resisted arrest."

In court, Ms. Aviv asked police why the seminary student had been arrested. The police representative said he did not know but wanted him to remain in detention for investigation.

"He wasn't caught throwing stones, so you can't hold him," the judge said. "You're free to go."

During the police charge, high school girls were attacked and pulled by their hair dragged on the ground, kicked and pushed into waiting police vans.

"They pulled her hair," said A. A., whose daughter, a minor, was arrested. "Her entire body hurts because they dragged her on the ground and hit her."

In detention, several girls refused to identify themselves or respond to interrogators. They later identified themselves to the court and Ms. Aviv released them without any conditions, criticizing the police for failing to provide any evidence of offenses.

At least six protesters, arrested for throwing rocks, have been remanded for another two days.

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 17, 2008.


It is unfortunate when two people supposedly both pro-Israel have a falling out. Prof. Steven Plaut and Barry Chamish are the pair. Plaut pooh poohs Chamish's conspiracy theory, and Chamish thinks that Plaut is not so pro-Israel. Plaut is carrying on a vendetta against Chamish. Chamish stopped saying some silly things years ago, but Plaut keeps bringing it up as if Chamish still holds to them. That is unfair. Plaut gets personal, and his ridicule is venomous.

Plaut ridicules the Rabin conspiracy theory. I read his sizeable piece about it in the Jewish Press. It omitted most aspects of the theory and the mountain of evidence, both factual and logical, and the supporting background. I found its attempted rebuttal inadequate and flippant. If that is the best that such a bright adversary can come up with, then the conspiracy theory is unassailable.

To bolster his rejection of the Rabin conspiracy theory, Plaut denies there are many conspiracies. Of course, not everything is a conspiracy, but many things are. Some are not formal but loosely organized groups, as below?

In some conspiracies, there are the immediate actors and sometimes major forces behind them. In the case of Rabin, Peres was the immediate mastermind, but the French were the major prompter. Certainly the EU is working mightily against Israel. The EU is not the only such major force. The American major force, according to Chamish, is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Plaut derided that notion, calling the Council the "publisher of Foreign Affairs Magazine. I wrote to Plaut asking whether he thinks it is fair to characterize CFR as a magazine publisher, when it is a collection of the leading officials in foreign relations. (Its paper on the Arab-Israel conflict urged radical Israeli appeasement that the Jewish state could not survive. That is another way of destroying Israel, and for what principle? Appeasement, surely those experts should know, did not bring peace with earlier totalitarians, the Nazis and Communists.)

Plaut replied that that CFR does nothing but talk and publish the magazine, and that that no more makes it conspirator than airlines would be conspirators because CFR members fly on planes. Silly! And irrelevant. I think that none of those leading officials ever publicly repudiated the CFR task force report that recommended much dismemberment of Israel. Neither Plaut nor CFR member Daniel Pipes replied to my asking them whether they repudiate it.


Islamic banking leaves investors unaware of where the money goes. Much goes to terrorism, mislabeled charity and to bribe in behalf of jihad (Arutz-7, 2/21).


To escape IDF pursuit, some terrorists turned themselves in to Abbas' forces. They were to serve for a few months in prison, then join his forces. Instead, they broke out of prison. They were helped by their guards (Arutz-7, 2/21).

Terrorists have escaped before, when relinquished to foreign custody. The government of Israel never learns or doesn't want to learn.


A former Human Rights Commissioner "...followed the party line in human rights circles, publicly attacking the countries where such freedoms are intact and stepping delicately around regimes that trample them." (Benny Avni, NY Sun, 3/10, p.7.)


PM Olmert promised that the Iron Dome anti-missile defense, and on which hundreds of millions of dollars were allocated, would protect Siderot from missiles fired from Gaza. His staff knew that was not true. The Iron Dome could protect only against missiles fired from at least 4 kilometers away, whereas Siderot is only 2 kilometers from the Gaza launching area. The Defense Minister knew the Iron Dome could not live up to his promises for it. The engineers developing it knew that it takes 9 seconds for a missile to reach Siderot, and it takes 15 seconds for Iron Dome to intercept a missile. The missile would strike Siderot before Iron Dome would be ready. Enemy missiles could go somewhat further, too, with impunity –– Iron Dome requires another 15 seconds for flight.

When Olmert found out, he authorized fortification of the 8,500 houses in Siderot. Less than half of the funds were available. His policy has been one of deceit and blunder and of officials not being candid with policy makers. They refused to explain their decisions and changed minds or answered in double talk or falsely.

The Iron Dome costs more than enemy rockets, and the enemy has more money than does Israel. A war of attrition doesn't make sense for Israel. Another unanswered question is that since the Iron Dome is of limited effectiveness, why weren't other alternatives chosen. Iron Dome has commercial applications.

In approving Iron Dome, Israeli officials rejected the Nautilus laser system, which has proved effective, can protect Siderot and down mortars, can be ready two years before Iron Dome, and would cost only $2,000 per shot (IMRA, 2/22).

Defense Min. Barak said that any significant withdrawal from Judea-Samaria depends on Israel having developed a defense against rockets. The Iron Dome turns out not to be such a defense (IMRA, 2/23).

Thousands of lives and national security, is hostage to greed and incompetence.


Haaretz distributed an Associated Press description of the Saudi Plan. The jist of the description is that the Arabs offered Israel recognition and peace, if Israel withdrew from Judea-Samaria and eastern Jerusalem and let into the smaller area left to Israel the descendants of the Arab refugees (IMRA, 2/23).

That description is misleading. The plan did not promise peace but only to consider it. If Israel conceded the territory demanded, it could not defend from invasion or have enough water to survive. If it let in the refugee descendants, it would be overthrown. If it gave up its holiest site, in eastern Jerusalem, it would lose its sole and then what would it be worth? Who would respect it? S. Arabia might not persuade the other Arabs to make peace, when they could conquer.


Israel's Vice-PM Ramon suggested that Israel abandon all the territory beyond the security fence. He claimed that when the fence line was demarcated by a right-wing government, the intent was to withdraw behind it (IMRA, 2/23).

Commentators suspected that either that was the intent it would become a rationalization for withdrawal. That is how Israel operates: pave the way for further appeasement, denying at the time that it is appeasing, but greasing the skids under Jewish rights rather than to stand up against the State Dept. rights.

What right-wing government? Sharon always had been a leftist and his policy about the Territories was one of withdrawal, which is leftist policy.


When biased professors are denied tenure for lack of qualifications or disseminating false and malicious propaganda or lauding terrorism or being convicted of facilitating it, leftist professors and lawyers complain about lack of academic freedom. Is tenure a right rather than something to be earned? When they are monitored and criticized, they complain, as if above criticism. The real blow to academic freedom is by the left, which doesn't hire conservative professors (MEFNews, 2/24). The biggest offenders are the biggest whiners.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, March 17, 2008.

Happy Purim and Happy Easter.

[Editor's Note: The photos were taken at Zion Square by Dan Paley on March 24, 2008, showing the secular and religious spontaneously dancing together.]

1. Purim's Hebrew root is fate/destiny ("Pur"), as well as "to frustrate", "to annul" ("Le'Ha'fer), "to crumble" and "to shutter" (Le'Phorer), reflecting the demise of Haman's design to annihilate the Jewish People.

2. Purim –– A War of Civilizations between Mordechai the Jew and Haman the Iranian-Amalekite –– constitutes an early edition of the war between Right vs Wrong, Liberty vs Tyranny, Just vs Evil, Truth vs Lies, as were/are the precedents of Adam/Eve vs Snake, Abel vs Cain, Abraham vs Sodom & Gomorrah, Jacob vs Esau (grandparent of Amalek), Maccabees vs Assyrians, Allies vs Nazis, Western democracies vs Islamic terrorism, etc.

3. The Timing –– the Jewish month of Adar. Adar is the root of the Hebrew word Le'Ha'adir (to glorify) and the Acadian word Adura (heroism). Purim is celebrated on the 14th and 15th day of Adar, commemorating the national liberation of the Jewish People in Persia and the victory of Judah the Maccabee over Nikanor, the Assyrian commander. The sign of Adar is fish, which is a symbol of demographic multiplication, in defiance of adversity. Moses –– the role model of leadership –– was born, and died, on the 7th day of Adar. Adar is the root of "to glorify" (LeHaAdir). The events of Purim occurred following the destruction of the 1st Temple by Nebuchadnezzar (586BC) and the exile from Zion, during the leadership of Ezra who returned to Jerusalem, in advent of the reconstruction of the Second Temple (516BC).

4. Mordechai, the hero of Purim and one of Ezra's deputies, was a role model of principle-driven optimism and defiance of odds, in face of a global power and in spite of the Jewish establishment, thus producing deliverance for the Jewish People. According to Judaism, deliverance is ushered by the bravery of faith-driven individuals, such as Nachshon –– who was the first to walk into the Red Sea before it was parted –– and Mordechai. He was a politically-INcorrect statesman and a retired military leader, who highlighted "disproportionate pre-emption" instead of defense, deterrence or retaliation. The first three Hebrew letters of "Mordechai" spell the Hebrew word "Rebellion" ("Mered"), which is consistent with the motto/legacy of the American Founding Fathers: "Rebellion against Tyranny is Obedience to G-D"). Mordechai would not bow to Haman, the second most powerful person in the Persian Empire. He would not compromise his values/principles as did the Jewish establishment in Persia. Mordechai was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, the only son of Jacob who did not bow to Esau. The name Mordechai is also a derivative of Mordouch –– the chief Babylonian god.

5. Esther, the heroine of Purim's Esther Scroll (the 24th and concluding book in the Old Testament) was Mordechai's cousin. Esther demonstrates the centrality of women in Judaism, shaping the future of the Jewish People, as did Sarah, Rebecca, Miriam, etc. The name Esther is a derivative of the Hebrew word for "clandestine", "hidden", "subtle" (Hester), which was reflective of her (initially) unknown Jewish identity and subtle-style at the royal court. The name Esther is also a derivative of Ishtar –– a Mesopotamian goddess, Astarte –– a Phoenician goddess. In fact, the one day pre-Purim Fast of Esther (commemorating the three day fast declared by Esther in order to expedite deliverance), was cherished by the Marano in Spain, who performed Judaism in a clandestine manner. The Scroll of Esther is the only book in the Old Testament, where the name of G-D is hidden/absent. Some of the Sages suggested that the explicit name of G-D is absent because the Scroll of Esther is the only Old Testament book, which deals exclusively with the Diaspora and not with the land of Israel. Esther's second name was Hadassah, whose root is Hadass –– myrtle tree in Hebrew –– which constitutes a metaphor for eyesight 20:20 and is identified with Venus (hence, Esther's other Hebrew name –– Noga –– glaring divine light, which is Venus in Hebrew). Myrtle flowers and leaves are a traditional decoration of brides.

6. King Ahasuerus-Xerxes appointed Mordechai to be his top advisor, overruling Haman's intent to prevent the resettling of Jews in Zion, the reconstruction of the Temple and the restoration of the wall around Jerusalem. He foiled Haman's plan to exterminate the Jews. The King prospered as a result of his change of heart and escaped assassination. That was the case with Pharaoh, who escaped national collapse and starvation and rose in global prominence, once he appointed Joseph to be his deputy.

7. Conviction-driven transparency/bluntness are few of the lessons of Esther Scroll, "Megilat Esther" in Hebrew. The Hebrew root of "Megilah" is "Galeh" –– exposed, overt, in-the-open –– the opposite of "Esther"-"Haster" (hidden). The contradiction between these terms constitutes a cardinal lesson: life is not a picnic; it is complex, full of contradictions and difficult dilemmas. One should be driven by principles, rather than by shifty convenience, in order to attain one's goals. Just as (Esther) the covert became overt, so would pessimism be transformed into optimism, if one adheres to one's long-term conviction, rather than to one's immediate convenience.

8. The four commandments of Purim:

  • Reading/studying the "Esther Scroll" within the family highlights the centrality of family, education, memory and youth as the foundation for a solid future.

  • Gifts to relatives and friends emphasize the importance of family and community.

  • Charity to the poor (at least the value of a meal) indicates the value of compassion.

  • Celebration and Happiness sustains the element of optimism and faith as the backbone of an individual and a nation.

9. Purim commemorates the Ten Parties in Esther Scroll –– Ahasuerus-Xerxes' 2 parties for the entire kingdom and for Shushan (the capital), Esther's coronation party, Ahasuerus-Xerxes' and Haman's party, Esther's 2 parties for Ahasuerus-Xerxes and Haman, Jewish deliverance party, post-deliverance parties in the entire kingdom and in Shushan and the 10th party is the traditional annual party. Number Ten has been very significant in Judaism: 10 commandments, 10 days of atonement, 10 plagues, 10 chapters and 10 parties in Esther Scroll, 10 key biblical hymns, 10 divine Genesis assertions, 10th Hebrew letter (G-D), 10 measurements of wisdom, 10 spiritual dimensions, 10 sanctuary crowns, 10 tribes of Canaan, 10 miracles during the Exodus from Egypt, 10 participants in a Jewish service, etc.

10. The Fast of Esther (on the day preceding Purim) symbolizes the turning point from near-oblivion to deliverance. The fast constitutes a sobering morality-driven experience, which stands in contradiction to –– and above –– partying. Mordechai fasted upon learning of Haman's conspiracy against the Jews. Esther declared a three-day Jewish fast, in advance of her crucial meeting with Ahasuerus-Xerxes.

11. Commemoration and destruction of a lethal enemy. The pre-Purim Sabbath is called "Memorial Sabbath" ("Shabbat Zakhor"), commemorating the war of extermination launched by the Amalekites against the Jewish Nation, since the Exodus from Egypt. One of Purim's lessons is that there are enemies, whose strategic goal is extermination, advanced by the tactical element of false-tenuous accommodation. They should be treated as mortal enemies and not as partners for peace. Mordechai was a descendant of King Saul, who defied a clear commandment and spared the life of Agag, the Amalekite king, thus causing further calamities upon the Jewish People. Consequently, Saul lost his royal position and life. Mordechai learnt from Saul's error, destroying Haman (a descendant of Agag the Amalekite) and his entire power base, thus sparing the Jewish People a major disaster.

Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, March 17, 2008.

Not only is there no good solution to the Gaza problem, there's no "solution" at all, But in the Middle East, solutions are rare; what's needed is the best, imperfect, option among five alternatives:

Current policy. Israel absorbs damage and casualties in Sderot and some other places. Few are affected; almost all the country functions normally. International pressure and casualties are limited. Israel hits rocket launchers, terrorist bases, and leading terrorists periodically. Eventually, there will be an anti-rocket defense.

But aside from government's duty to its citizens, things will change. Hamas will produce larger and longer-range missiles against Ashkelon and eventually Ashdod.

Another problem with this strategy is that Western criticism defines even minimal self-defense methods as disproportionate. If you get slammed for taking punches you might as well fight back. Moreover, the West basically protects Hamas' rule in Gaza, despite sanctions and diplomatic isolation, neither of which might last. As Hamas grows more aggressive, Western policies might become more appeasing. Meanwhile, being "soft" on Hamas doesn't make peace talks work but does make Hamas look more effective than the less violent PA and Fatah.

Finally, public opinion presses government to change policy.

There are three proposals playing off a thirst for neat solutions. A ceasefire is an ideal dovish solution, overthrowing Hamas appeals to hawks, and giving the mess to an international force makes both philosophies happy. Unfortunately none of these ideas work.

A ceasefire is riddled with problems, paradoxically bringing even more violence. Hamas won't observe it, letting both its own members and others attack Israel while inciting murder through every institution. The ceasefire won't last long; Hamas would use it to strengthen its rule and army while demanding a reward for its "moderation": an end to sanctions and diplomatic isolation; even Western aid.

Re-occupy Gaza; Destroy Hamas. Sounds good. But how? Israel isn't being hit hard enough to make such a huge undertaking worthwhile. Troops would face constant attack from all directions. Once again, Israel would be involved in the daily rule of more than one million hostile people. Too many soldiers would be tied up to permit proper security in the West Bank and Lebanon border. It would be high-cost in casualties, money, and international friction.

And in the end Hamas will not be "destroyed." To defeat Hamas is not to eliminate it but to keep it as weak as possible (through military strikes, isolation, etc.) and limit its ability to hit Israel.

There's also the plan's second fallacy of turning Gaza over to a "moderate" Fatah and PA. There is no chance of their accepting this gift. In fact, Fatah would rather make a deal with Hamas than fight it. And why believe they'd do a better job than last time?

The International Solution. But there's a gimmick: the idea of turning Gaza over to an international force. This is a fantasy. Countries are not going to send forces into a war there to be attacked every day, nor will they brave criticism from Arab and Muslim states as well as terrorist attacks for no benefit.

Besides, what will the force do? Certainly not arrest thousands of Gazans, kill those trying to attack Israel, hold mass trials of terrorists and sentence them to long prison terms. Definitely not disarm Hamas or stop arms smuggling from Egypt.

And when rockets keep falling that force would block Israeli military action there. The option would also be a political disaster, with the sponsoring countries rushing to establish a Palestinian state and negotiate with Hamas. Finally, as noted above, the PA and Fatah won't take Gaza from an international force.

Push Hamas Back: What is needed is the most realistic option based on reality, not wishful thinking. Israel's interest is to minimize attacks on its soil and citizens while limiting the cost of the response needed to achieve that goal. This can be best done by combining a more active version of current policy and the creation of a security zone in the "northern" Gaza Strip to push Hamas and its allies out of range.

Such a zone could be made relatively secure because it would be on a narrow front, with flanks protected by the sea on the north and Israel proper on the south and east, with Israel controlling the airspace. This is an interim policy until anti-missile, anti-rocket defenses can be implemented, perhaps three years.

Of course, there is risk. Israeli forces will be attacked, yet they would be in a strong, fortified position and know they are protecting the civilians behind them. Some rockets will fall on Israel but the numbers would be far reduced and the area affected limited. Israel would continue to operate within Hamas-held Gaza as needed.

Will the world –– which claims Israel is occupying Gaza already –– do much if Israel temporarily takes back ten percent?

This issue will not be solved by negotiations, concessions, appeasement, force, or anything else. Defense Minister Ehud Barak is right: "It's not the end, the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning."

The same logic applies to Gaza as for the West Bank and Lebanon border. The main goal is for the army to minimize danger and damage so people can go about their normal lives and build up the country, protected by their soldiers.

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). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, March 17, 2008.

Condoleeza Rice's 13th trip to Israel culminated in the murder and maiming of teenage boys learning Torah in the heart of Jerusalem on March 6, 2008.

The New York Times (editorial, 3/3/2008) wants to see more "hands-on diplomacy" by Condoleeza Rice in the Middle East.

G-d save us.

It would have been enough if she had continually excused Palestinians as victims.

It would have been enough if she had overlooked the widespread popularity of Hamas in Palestinian society.

It would have been enough if she had ignored Fatah's support for Hamas in the face of Israeli attempt to end the missiles on Israeli cities.

It would have been enough if she had ignored Fatah's terrorist activities through its own al Aksa Martyr's Brigade.

It would have been enough if she had insisted that the only way to end violence is to establish a Palestinian state, rather than the other way around.

It would have been enough if she had called for Israel to step up its humanitarian aid to Gaza, instead of holding Hamas responsible for any humanitarian crisis.

It would have been enough if she had urged Israel to demolish the communities built by Jews in Judea and Samaria.

It would have been enough if she had announced that the US will be giving $148 million to UNRWA in 2008 to support "refugee camps" that are all hotbeds of terror recruitment, training and indoctrination.

It would have been enough if President Bush had overridden a congressional ban on the transfer of $150 million to a corrupt Fatah.

... but everything Condi touches turns to blood.

Tell them enough is enough! Dayenu!

President George Bush
Fax: 202-456-2461
Comment line: 202-456-1111

Condoleeza Rice
Fax: 202-647-2283
Comment line: 202-647-6575

Nita Lowey (D-NY)
Chairwoman of the House subcommittee that funds America's foreign aid
Phone: 202-225-6506 Ask for Matt Dennis, Congressional Aide
Fax: 202-225-0546 Address the fax to Matt Dennis, Congressional Aide

Members of the United States House Appropriations Subcommittee:

Adam Schiff (D-CA 29th) Phone: 202-225-4176 Fax: 202-225-5828
Steve Israel (D-NY 2nd) Phone: 202-225-3335 Fax: 202-225-4669
Ben Chandler (D-KY 6th) Phone: 202-225-4706 Fax: 202-225-2122
Steven R. Rothman (D-NJ 9th) Phone: 202-225-5061 Fax: 202-225-5851
Barbara Lee (D-CA 9th) Phone: 202-225-2661 Fax: 202-225-9817
Betty McCollum (D-MN 4th) Phone: 202-225-6631 Fax: 202-225-1968
Frank Wolf (Ranking R-VA 10th) Phone: 202-225-5136 Fax: 202-225-0437
Joe Knollenberg (R-MI 9th) Phone: 202-225-5802 Fax: 202-225-2356
Mark Steven Kirk (R-IL 10th) Phone: 202-225-4835 Fax: 202-226-0837
Ander Crenshaw (R-FL 4th) Phone: 202-225-2501 Fax: 202-225-2504
Dave Weldon (R-FL 15th) Phone: 202-225-3671 Fax: 202-225-3516

Contact Doris Wise Montrose by email at doris@cjhsla.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 17, 2008.

It's hard for me to imagine that anyone who cares about Israel and sees what's going on now could avoid being at least a bit sick. Heartsick, for sure.


Let's start with a statement from the EU: "While recognizing Israel's legitimate right to self defense, the European Council calls for an immediate end to all acts of violence."

Makes a lot of sense.


What's really got the EU upset, however, is the question of settlements. A statement on this was issued after a summit of EU leaders:

"The EU reiterates that settlement building anywhere in the occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law.

"Settlement activity prejudges the outcome of final status negotiations and threatens the viability of an agreed two-state solution. "


Well, there's so much wrong with this statement that it's hard to know where to start. But this provides me with an opportunity to provide some answers:


The area of Judea and Samaria is, under international law, unassigned Mandate territory. The Mandate for establishing a homeland for the Jewish people between the river and the sea (which called for encouraging close settlement of the land) has never been superseded in international law. Until such time as the area is assigned, Israeli presence is legal.


Israel is not an "occupier" in Judea and Samaria. This is a widely believed canard. "Occupation" refers to a situation in which one sovereign nation moves into the territory of another sovereign nation. This is not the case here at all.


The "territories" are not "Palestinian." The Arabs identified today as Palestinians never possessed this area. The myths are so prevalent that many people actually have some vague, and very erroneous, notion that the Palestinians "had" the land and then Israel took it away.

The land was controlled for centuries by the Ottoman Empire, and then (from 1918-1948) by the British. When the British pulled out and Israel had to defend herself in the War of Independence, the Jordanians moved into Judea and Samaria. There was never a demand by the local population that Jordan should pull out and give them the land.

In fact, the PLO specifically said in its founding charter, in 1964, that there was no claim on this land (or on Gaza as controlled by the Egyptians). The claim was against Israel within the Green Line. When Israel took over in 1967, the land was taken from the Jordanians, not the local Palestinian Arabs. It was only after Israel was in Judea and Samaria that the Palestinian Arabs decided that had a claim to this area. Please understand this clearly.

I would add that it is not so that the Arabs in Judea and Samaria were all there for centuries. Undoubtedly some families do trace their lines back that way. But many of the present "Palestinians" derive from migratory groups who entered the area in recent times –– from other Arab areas –– for purposes of grazing their animals or seeking work.


It is not the issue of settlements that is the stumbling block to peace. Yet another canard. It is the refusal of the Arab world to accept Israel's right to exist here as a Jewish state.

The assumption is being made that everything beyond the Green Line "belongs" to a future Palestinian state. That's what the Palestinians keep telling the world, and what the world has come to believe. But in point of fact, if (G-d forbid) there were to be a Palestinian state, its parameters would have to be negotiated.

The Green Line was never a border –– it was an armistice line only. When the armistice agreement was signed between Israel and Jordan (note: Jordan, not the "Palestinians"), it was written in that this armistice line would not prejudice future negotiations regarding a final border.

It was assumed that the armistice line would not be the border.


This leads us to the significant issue of Israel's right to secure borders, which has been acknowledged even by the UN Security Council. Israel frozen inside the Green Line was recognized as not having defensible borders –– with a narrow waist of some 9 miles that could be traversed no time, cutting the State in two; lack of strategic depth against enemies approaching from the east; and high land in Samaria beyond the Green Line that made us –– our major cities and our airport –– vulnerable to being shelled.

The settlements were placed in Judea and Samaria at least in part as protection in this regard. The Gush Etzion Bloc protects Jerusalem from the south east and Ma'aleh Adumim protects her from the east.

And yet, everyone seems to think a return to the Green Line is what we must accept now, surrendering our protection. And surrendering it, no less, to an entity whose population is hostile to us. That's because the international community is concerned only with Palestinian presumed rights, and no one is guarding or cares about Israel's legitimate rights.


In April 2004, President Bush wrote a letter to PM Sharon, prior to Sharon's plans to pull out of Gaza, praising him for his intentions. There were statements in that letter that Sharon claimed were a guarantee that we would be able to retain major settlement blocs in the advent of the establishment of a Palestinian state. The relevant portion of that letter, which alludes to the issue of secure borders:

"As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

And yet, today, Bush, who was touted as our best friend ever, has totally reneged on this. Rice has explicitly made this clear on more than one occasion. We are being sold.


This is the true obstacle to peace:

Dr. Walid Al-Rashudi, head of the Department of Islamic Studies at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, gave a lecture that was carried on Al-Aqsa TV on February 29, 2008, and has been translated by MEMRI:

"One of the important things that we must tell people is that what is going on in Palestine today is a real holocaust. This is the real holocaust. A holocaust is not the burning of 50-60 Jews in Germany or Switzerland, but the Jews continue to call it the Holocaust...

"So what are we supposed to say in the face of the Gaza holocaust? What compensation will satisfy us? By Allah, we will not be satisfied even if all the Jews are killed."

Even more, this is the true obstacle to human decency in its most essential nature.


According to the Washington Post yesterday, when Rice was here recently, and trying to get Abbas back to the negotiating table, she conferred with Egypt and then asked Olmert to make a statement: that if Hamas stopped launching rockets we would halt operations into Gaza. Craven coward that he is, he made the statement, even though it contravened what the Security Cabinet had just decided. Then Egypt was able to go to Hamas with this statement and convince them to stop.

It is no surprise to those of us who have been closely watching these events. Clearly, something was afoot. But now it has been reported.


Rice is due back here in 10 days, to push the "process" harder. This is in anticipation of Bush's arrival in May.

Said one US official: "The president's visit in May is intended to take action and achieve results, and therefore, the administration is interested in seeing some progress...Bush does not intend to act like a lame duck, so something has to happen on the ground by the time of the president's visit."

Well, bully for Bush. Something "has to happen" before he comes? This is our timetable?


A meeting took place on Friday regarding implementation of the road map that was chaired by another of our enemies, US Gen. William Fraser, who is doing Rice's bidding. PA PM Fayyad attended. Amos Gilad, of the Defense Ministry, represented Israel. The PA was critical of Defense Minister Barak for not attending himself. I'm no fan of Barak's, but I salute this move, which was a deliberate snub.


My prediction hasn't changed: At the end of the day, or the end of this ridiculous process, it will be the Palestinians who will save us. Because they won't get their act together and won't agree to any compromises.

Abbas, who is very weak, has Hamas breathing down his neck and has already been charged with collaboration with the enemy; he has to deliver on all demands or he can't sign. They will find their way out of this because it doesn't suit the radical vision of our destruction they still hold on to. There will be no peace agreement because there is no peace partner.

I just pray not too much damage will be done before this day arrives. There are still reports, for example, of Egypt's attempts to arrange that ceasefire with Hamas.

The harder Bush and Rice fall on their faces in the end, with regard to their attempts to push us into something disastrous, the better I will like it.


Much more to deal with, and it will have to wait until tomorrow.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daisy Stern, March 17, 2008.

(IsraelNN.com) Vice Premier Chaim Ramon said Saturday that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria that lack government approval should be destroyed as quickly as possible. The government should decide within the next two weeks which towns will be destroyed, he said in a radio interview.

The towns should be destroyed even if the destruction will lead to violent clashes with the residents, he said. Ramon explained that in his opinion, the communities are worsening Israel's image in the international community, and the sooner they can be destroyed the better.

Contact Daisy Stern by email at daisystern1@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, March 16, 2008.

Anyone who still believes that implementation of the Road Map will benefit Israel is sadly mistaken. Anyone who still believes that negotiating with 'Holocaust revisionist' Mahmoud Abbas makes any sense is sadly mistaken. Yet, America's current administration stays the course, attempts to coerce Israel to cede precious land to her hostile so-called Palestinian neighbor, remains loyal to Fatah's 'good cop' president Abbas, rightly disavows Hamas' 'bad cop' prime minister Ismail Haniya, even though they only differ in tactics, concurring on their final solution, destruction of the Jewish State of Israel. Could U.S. President G. W. Bush and teammate U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, kindred spirit erstwhile (perhaps current) oil execs, be so dense not to comprehend this reality, or might their true agendas revolve around anticipated worldwide kudos, especially from Middle Eastern robed rogue oil barons, as well as admired legacies perhaps iced with Nobel Peace Prizes, albeit ignobly purloined at the expense of the shlamazel Jewish homeland, sacrificed on a cynically crafted altar of deception.

Israel must now craft her own strategy, bobbing and weaving until next year when a new U.S. administration, unhappily burdened by a likely floundering debt-ridden economy teetering on a precipice overlooking catastrophe canyon, unhappily more dependent than ever on the kindness of oil-rich Middle Eastern anti-Semitic royalty, inherits its dubious position, straddling a White House hot seat with seemingly little room to maneuver. As long as a prescient Jewish homeland remains territorially intact, she will remain in control of her destiny. Israel must ever realize any new U.S. administration, little concerned with a 'peace in the Middle East at the expense of Israel' legacy at this stage of its game, will likely perhaps subtly tell its most reliable Middle East ally, 'ask not what Uncle Sam can do for you, ask what you can do for Uncle Sam.' For one thing, a technologically advanced Israel, positioning herself as a vanguard in battery technology, could partner with the planet's one superpower endeavoring to remake a worldwide tattered image, promoting climate friendly battery powered vehicles. As glaciers continue to melt more rapidly threatening for one the water supplies of many nations, as terrorist networks metastasize more rapidly underwritten by extortionist oil-rich regimes growing in wealth from oil dependent industrial nations, one sure way to slow or hopefully reverse these trends is to develop and disseminate an affordable alternative vehicle which uses no fossil fuel. The United States, no longer led by an oil friendly administration abetting a per barrel increase in price of that prehistoric carbon byproduct from about $17 to over $100 in less than eight years with its policies, abetting an obscene increase in monetary wealth for oil providing madrassa financing nuclear emerging regimes like Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively as its petrodollar tumbles in value, could once again become a true well-intentioned ally of Israel, especially if the Jewish state remains secure and vital by retaining all of her land, including annexed land, justifiably acquired as a consequence of vanquishing hostile Arabs attempting to destroy her in 1967.

Israel must convince the new U.S. administration she can do more for her ally once Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, and all of Jerusalem (alas, if only Gaza was included) are formally declared to be part of that sovereign Jewish nation. Let's cut the nonsense, the ruse that a viable Palestinian state is the primary issue in the Middle East, that it would insure peace in the Middle East, is a convenient diversion from all the major problems in that troubled region and the next U.S. administration should be convinced to adopt what should be that self-evident truth. Furthermore, let President Clinton, President Obama, or President McCain amplify a binding friendship with America's only dependable Middle East ally by moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, a magnificent symbolic gesture fecklessly avoid by past U.S. administrations, including the current one with the strongest links to the House of Saud. That unambiguous defined position by today's less than forthright superpower in the eyes of much of the world, coupled with a substantive commitment to lead the way in reducing the world's dependency on fossil fuels, will in time earn planet wide respect not only for itself, but will enhance the standing of little respected Israel. Such clearly defined in-your-face sensible positions will in fact go a long way in restoring U.S. prominence among civilized nations, ever in need of strong leadership during these uncertain perilous times.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, March 16, 2008.

This is background information about the Pollard case by Esther Pollard. Translated into English by Justice4JP. View Makor Rishon original of the above article in Hebrew: at www.jonathanpollard.org:

  • My husband, Jonathan Pollard, is an Israeli agent in captivity, currently completing his 23rd year of a life sentence for his service to the security of the State of Israel.

  • Jonathan is the only person in the history of the US to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally. The median sentence for this offense is 2 to four years. Jonathan is currently serving his 23rd year of a life sentence, with no end in sight.

  • Jonathan did not commit treason. Treason is defined by the US Constitution as "serving an enemy state in time of war". Israel is not an enemy and the 2 countries are not at war.

  • Jonathan was charged with the lesser of the espionage statutes: 1 count of conspiracy to commit espionage with no intent to harm the US.

  • The information that Jonathan provided to Israel included Iranian, Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities –– all being developed for use against Israel. He also provided information on ballistic missile development by these countries and information on up-coming terrorist attacks planned against Israeli civilian targets.

  • Israel was legally entitled to this vital security information according to a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding signed by both countries. But the information was deliberately being withheld from Israel as the result of an illegal intelligence embargo implemented by former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and former Deputy Director of the CIA Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, whose pro-Arab tilt did not jibe with declared US foreign policy.

  • In the beginning Jonathan volunteered his services and only later did he become a bona fide agent on behalf of the State of Israel. His zeal to save Israeli lives was his sole motivation. Even the sentencing judge –– who was no friend of the case –– recognized that Jonathan was an ideologue, not a mercenary, and therefore declined to impose a monetary fine.

  • From the time that Jonathan was first arrested in 1985, Israel denied all ties to him, and cooperated fully with the American prosecution to secure a life sentence for him.

  • For its own shameful reasons the American Jewish leadership endorsed and perpetuated Israel's lies. On March 10, 1987 –– six days after my husband was sentenced to Life in complete violation of a plea agreement which Jonathan honored and the US abrogated –– the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations sent a letter to the US State Department promising never to interfere on his behalf. The Conference has kept that promise with religious zeal. (A copy of their letter, obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, appears on our web site.)

  • Despite the passage of 23 years and innumerable opportunities, Israel's lies continue to govern this case, and effectively to keep Jonathan in prison.

  • Israel cravenly handed over to the US all of the evidence that was used against Jonathan. Without this evidence, the US had no case, and would have been forced to set him free.

  • In betraying Jonathan and by handing over the evidence, Israel earned for itself the dishonorable distinction of becoming the first and only country in the history of modern espionage ever to assist in the indictment and prosecution of its own agent!

  • Israel paid the lawyer who secured a life sentence for Jonathan, without benefit of trial. The median sentence for the offense Jonathan had committed was 2 to 4 year sentence –– not Life!

  • This was the same lawyer, paid by the Government of Israel, who failed to file a simple Notice of Intent to Appeal, forever depriving Jonathan of his right to appeal his Life sentence.

  • By contrast, to this day Israel has steadfastly refused to pay a cent to the lawyers who, unlike the above-mentioned lawyer, are trying to help Jonathan to secure his release from prison.

  • Even though Jonathan fought and succeeded in forcing the State of Israel to officially acknowledge him as her agent, the State's attitude towards him and its resolute abandonment of him has not changed at all in 23 years.

  • The State of Israel has never taken the most minimal steps –– legal, moral, or diplomatic to secure Jonathan's release.

  • To this day, Israel has never officially informed the White House, the Justice, Intelligence or State Departments that Jonathan is an Israeli agent and that Israel intends to seek his release. Consequently the American Justice Department continues to regard him only as a common criminal, not as an Israeli agent, and to treat him accordingly.

  • To this day the State of Israel has never sought the assistance of American congressmen or senators on Jonathan's case, and for 2 decades it has calculatedly avoided engaging AIPAC or any other effective lobby organization on his behalf.

  • In 23 years Israel has never done any hasbara for the public in Israel or in the US to explain its position on Jonathan's case or to promote his release –– as it routinely does to explain every other matter of importance to the State.

  • For 23 years, the State of Israel has deliberately attempted to prevent the Israeli public from knowing about Jonathan. A good indicator of the Government's attitude towards Jonathan is reflected in the Ministry of Education's refusal to include his plight in the regular school curriculum. The Ministry of Education Library and Archives (which teachers use for research) contains absolutely no information whatsoever about Jonathan! Not a single reference!

  • When Jonathan's former handler, Rafi Eitan, ran for Knesset earlier this year, it put the lie to the Government's long-standing claim that pressing for Jonathan's release might somehow damage Israel's relationship with the US. Indeed the Government of Israel demonstrated no compunction whatsoever about possible damage to US-Israel relations or to Jonathan's situation when immediately upon his election, it appointed Rafi Eitan as a minister

  • The Government's appointment of Eitan as minister was done with the full knowledge that the Americans regard Eitan as an unindicted co-conspirator in the affair and that he had played a key role in the betrayal of Jonathan Pollard, even providing false testimony to the Americans which had doomed Jonathan.

  • From the time Jonathan was first arrested, the only consistent "plan" Israel has ever had for his release is to bring him home in a coffin. This fact has been confirmed for us over and over again for the last 23 years by various officials and events.

  • Jonathan miraculously survived the first 7 years of his incarceration in solitary confinement, in barbaric conditions in a dungeon cell 3 stories underground at USP Marion and then waged his own battle –– without any help from the State of Israel –– to be moved to open population at FCI Butner.

  • Just shortly after his move to FCI Butner in the spring of 1993, Israel sent a Mossad agent to Jonathan on official business. Instead of presenting Jonathan with a plan for securing his release, the Mossad agent came armed with an official request that Jonathan kill himself. "Committing suicide," Jonathan was informed, would "solve the Pollard problem" for the State of Israel.

  • The Israeli policy which wants to bring Jonathan Pollard home in a coffin, G-d forbid, continues to this day, and illuminates the Israeli Government's calculated consistency in missing every opportunity to secure Jonathan's release.

  • Instead, successive Governments of Israel have routinely exploited Jonathan's name and his plight, using it as a sweetener to sell unpopular unilateral concessions to the Israeli public. But when crunch time comes, Jonathan is always dropped from every deal and painful unilateral concessions to the enemy are made regardless. (Some examples include the Hebron Accords, the Wye Accords, and most recently the Disengagement from Gaza and northern Samaria).

  • In Washington it is an open secret that Jonathan's sentence is grossly disproportionate and purely political. This was confirmed in a 2002 interview with former Secretary of Defense, the late Caspar Weinberger. Weinberger openly admitted that Jonathan's case was a "minor matter" that had been exaggerated out of all proportion to serve another political agenda. The opening that this admission created to secure Jonathan's release was totally ignored.

  • As well, James Woolsey, former head of the CIA has repeatedly stated publicly for years that the time has come to free Jonathan Pollard. No response from Israel.

  • Similarly Dennis Ross, the former US Special Envoy to the Middle East, stated in his book "The Missing Peace" (published in 2004) that Jonathan deserves to be freed unconditionally. Nevertheless, writes Ross, Pollard is far too valuable as a bargaining chip against Israel, so he advised the president at Wye not to release him. Still no response from Israel.

  • In point of fact, Israel has already "paid" for Jonathan's release several times over (including freeing 750 murderers and terrorists with blood on their hands as part of the Wye Accords), but has never bothered to collect its due.

  • In the 23 years that Jonathan has been in prison, he has repeatedly been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and severe affliction. The Government of Israel has been informed of each and every episode of mistreatment of its agent but has never once intervened on his behalf, nor has the Government ever protested.

  • Jonathan's first court appearance in the US in 2 decades took place in the year 2003. Israel did not even bother to send a representative. Instead, on the eve of Jonathan's court hearing, Israel's consular representative in New York who was given the task of officially responding to the media, slandered Jonathan on American national television thus sending a clear message to the judge that Jonathan is "hefker" and that no one in Israel cares what is done with him.

  • Israel's intent never to bring Jonathan home alive, is reflected in the immoral and mean-spirited way that the State relates to me, his wife.

  • As the wife of an Israeli agent, the fact that I remain homeless and penniless speaks volumes about the State's attitude towards Jonathan.

  • Compare this with the case of an Israeli drug dealer, a family friend of a Prime Minister, who was taken captive while pursuing his own illicit interests, and not in the service of the State. Both his wife and his mistress and their two respective families received full support for the duration of his captivity. I on the other hand, receive no help whatsoever and am dependent for my survival on the kindness of a few friends.

  • Worse still, the Government brazenly lies to the Supreme Court and to the Israeli public when it repeatedly claims to be supporting Jonathan and me financially. We presented documented proof to State Comptroller Judge Micha Lindenstrauss that in 23 years, neither Jonathan nor I have ever received a cent from the Government of Israel.

  • The bottom line is that for 23 years, the State of Israel has stubbornly denied granting Jonathan any status that would bring him or his wife any assistance, or relief, or the possibility of securing his release.

  • Even though Jonathan fought for and obtained official recognition as an agent, his name does not appear on the Ministry of Defense's list of captives, thus depriving him of all of his rights as an agent in captivity.

  • The State also refuses to grant him status as a Prisoner of Zion, again depriving him of any rights that might accrue and, more importantly, depriving him of the protections this status would afford him.

By denying Jonathan status within the official framework governed by the Ministry of Defense (as a Shavui); or by the Internal Affairs Ministry (as a PoZ); the State of Israel has relegated Jonathan to the status of a person who does not officially exist and who therefore, can effectively be ignored to death.


Via Attorney, Pollard Fights Govt. Lies Re Support

Expose: The Lindenstrauss File

The Facts Page
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/facts.htm [good summary, succinct –– ed.]

The Information Page

The Wye Double-Cross Page

Jonathan and the Judge: A Final Chapter in the Pollard Case? –– Text of Esther Pollard's Speech

FOIA Document: Conference of President's Letter to US State Dept

What No One Wants to Talk About –– (Re: Israel's failure to lobby at all for Pollard)

Caspar's Ghost –– (Interview with Weinberger admission that Pollard case was exaggerated out of all proportion) by Edwin Black

Excerpts From "The Missing Piece" by Dennis Ross

Terror in the US and The Jonathan Pollard Case by Larry Dub Esq

The Clemency Page Articles

The Bagatz Page (Israel Supreme Court Page)

Jonathan Pollard's Letter to the Families of the Captive Soldiers

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Aaron Lerner, March 16, 2008.

Here is an excellent example of the tremendous difference in the quality of analysis of military people when they are dealing with military issues as compared to the quality of their analysis when they stray into other fields:

Military analysis: "Professionally speaking, if Israel wants to prevent any high-trajectory rocket or mortar fire, it must establish good control on the ground... Local arms production is a matter of know-how, but if Israeli forces are present on the ground, as they are in the West Bank, then we can stop the development and manufacture of rockets and other weapons in time. "

Political analysis: "Why are the Palestinians in Gaza still shooting at Israel even after it disengaged from Gaza? A few weeks after the 2005 Israeli disengagement there was a large rally in Gaza where a number of Palestinians were killed by exploding armaments. Since no side would take responsibility, both sides blamed Israel and began firing rockets. That's how it started. "

If Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan genuinely thinks that the main reason the Palestinians attack Israel is because of misplaced blame for a particular incident then he is profoundly clueless when it comes to the Arab Israeli conflict.

This is called "How Will the IDF Confront Regional Threats? –– A Strategic Overview," by Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan, Commander of the Israel Air Force and Former Head of the IDF Planning Directorate. It was published as a Jerusalem Issue Brief by the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), Vol. 7, No. 36, 16 March 2008. Contact the Center at jcpa@netvision.net.il. This article is archived at
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID= 1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=283&PID=0&IID=2068&TTL= How_Will_the_IDF_Confront_Regional_Threats?_-_A_Strategic_Overview

  • The three primary generators of Middle East radicalism and extremism are Iran's "Shia Crescent," the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Global Jihad. Having a nuclear weapon promotes its owner to membership in a top-tier club in the world and allows the possessor to promote its interests more easily. Iran is Persian, ideologically and historically different from the Arab world. Yet if Iran gets its hands on nuclear weapons in the future, the threatened pro-Western regimes of the Arab world may decide to join it and not fight it.

  • Hizbullah possesses advanced weapons in quantities not found in too many armies in the world, including a huge and very diverse array of missiles and rockets. For example, Hizbullah used a shore-to-sea missile that struck the Israeli naval vessel Hanit. Israel itself has no such shore-to-sea missiles.

  • Like Hizbullah, the many Palestinian organizations also have military capabilities, but act without any of the responsibilities of a country. One organization is not even responsible for the actions of another. But if the Palestinians are to have a state, the whole idea of statehood in the world includes certain responsibilities.

  • Professionally speaking, if Israel wants to prevent any high-trajectory rocket or mortar fire, it must establish good control on the ground. In the West Bank, Israel has control over the external perimeter and can control the entrance of weapons inside the area. Furthermore, if Israeli forces are present on the ground, then they can stop the manufacture of locally-produced rockets and other weapons in time.

Three Channels of Middle East Radicalism: Iran's "Shia Crescent," the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Global Jihad

There is a need for a new paradigm to understand the complex of state and non-state actors in the Middle East. Hizbullah, a part of the "Shia Crescent," is an example of this new paradigm –– a non-state organization supported with Iranian funds, know-how, and technology to become a powerful tool to advance Iran's policies.

Iran is the leader of the radical camp, today supporting Shia Hizbullah as well as Sunni Hamas, and even its old enemy the Taliban (with which it was on the verge of war at the end of the 1990s). Khomeini's 1979 manifesto called for the export of the Islamic revolution and the extinction of the State of Israel, viewing the United States and all the other infidel nations as the enemies of the revolution.

Iran is very much striving for regional hegemony, as seen in its push for nuclearization. Yet Iran is Persian, a people who are ideologically and historically different from the Arab world, and it poses a threat to many Arab countries. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states –– the pro-Western regimes of the Arab world –– all sense a threat from Iran. Yet if Iran gets its hands on nuclear weapons in the future, they may decide to join it and not fight it.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the source of another channel of radicals. This movement, established in the 1920s in Egypt, follows an extremist ideology in pursuit of its goals and it is pursuing a very long-term agenda.

The Global Jihad doesn't have the patience of the Muslim Brotherhood. Its affiliates have many forms and have been operating in Sinai and in Lebanon, where last year it fought the Lebanese army at Nahr al-Barad. The Global Jihad can also be seen in Saudi Arabia and even in Jordan. It is kind of a ghost, it lingers in the air, but it is definitely there. These are the primary generators of the radical effort in the Middle East.

Radicals vs. Pragmatists

While the Israeli-Arab conflict remains, it is mostly with the Palestinians. There are very good and stable peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. But the pressure in the Middle East is no longer only about the conflict with Israel. The entire region may now be seen according to the paradigm of two conflicting camps, the radicals versus the pragmatists. Israel needs to understand the strategy of this radical camp in order to develop its counter-strategy and bring its interests to the table.

Iran's nuclearization process is bringing a new dimension to the conflict. The process by itself is increasing regional fears. Having a nuclear weapon promotes its owner to membership in a top-tier club in the world. Having nuclear weapons is the ultimate insurance policy, and allows the possessor to promote its interests and negative policies (i.e., support of terror) more easily. This is the process we see now with Iran and that is why it's so important to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Hizbullah is a non-state entity that has become a major player, applying pressure and violence without being held responsible. Hizbullah itself does not develop technology, but it possesses advanced weapons in quantities not found in too many armies in the world, including a huge and very diverse array of missiles and rockets. For example, Hizbullah used a shore-to-sea missile that struck the Israeli naval vessel Hanit on July 14, 2006, killing four Israeli soldiers during the Second Lebanon War. Not too many countries have shore-to-sea missiles; Israel doesn't. Yet it's not that complicated for Hizbullah to bring in weapons when they are living next door to Syria.

The many Palestinian organizations also try to emulate Hizbullah –– they are organizations with military capabilities but without any of the responsibilities of a country. One organization is not even responsible for the actions of another. But if the Palestinians are to have a state, the whole idea of statehood in the world includes certain responsibilities. That's why the current situation is so dangerous.

Defeating Terror in an Age of Technology and Open Societies

Two global processes have made the challenge even more complex. One is the development of technology. Hi-tech weapons that amplify and augment their damage capacity are much more common and much more mobile. Furthermore, the Internet allows the transfer of weapons-making knowledge such as how to manufacture Kassam rockets.

The second process involves the difficulties of an open, modern, sensitive, Western society such as Israel's in operating against terrorists who operate from within civilian territory against civilians on the Israeli side. Now that civilians are part of the equation, anti-terror operations become much more difficult. When we have to operate against forces that operate within a civilian environment, we have to be pinpoint precise and very sensitive to collateral damage. We are much more limited in what we can do.

It was not like this in World War II, but it is today, and we have to operate within this environment and under these constraints. At the same time, we still have to provide security for our people. Part of the strategy of the extremists is to seek to take advantage of the weakness of modern society. This is their strategy and we have to confront it.

Gaza as an Example of the New Conflict Paradigm

The process that we see in Gaza is the first appearance ever of a regime affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is building up its power and building its military capabilities, alongside the ongoing shelling of populated areas in Israeli territory. Our civilians have suffered from years of constant shelling that really makes life impossible for them. Even if we build better shelters, this is no way to raise children. This is the reality that is going on now in Gaza. Military activity is taking place all the time.

Why are the Palestinians in Gaza still shooting at Israel even after it disengaged from Gaza? A few weeks after the 2005 Israeli disengagement there was a large rally in Gaza where a number of Palestinians were killed by exploding armaments. Since no side would take responsibility, both sides blamed Israel and began firing rockets. That's how it started. Again, in May 2007, before the Hamas coup when Hamas and Fatah clashes were reaching a climax, the way for the Palestinians to abruptly halt the infighting was to begin a massive shelling of Israeli localities.

Is there a military solution for Gaza? In 2002, the IDF embarked on Operation Defensive Shield to retake the West Bank when a decision to do so was made by Israel's political echelon. It took a few years, but we managed to establish a different kind of control. The motivation of suicide bombers in the West Bank did not recede, but their capabilities did. Thus, ongoing activity in the West Bank remains necessary to maintain this situation. In Gaza, as well, the IDF will do what it is instructed to do.

The Importance of Controlling Territory

Professionally speaking, if Israel wants to prevent any high-trajectory rocket or mortar fire, it must establish good control on the ground. Compare Lebanon and Gaza to the West Bank, where Israel has control over the external perimeter and can control the entrance of weapons inside the area. In Lebanon, well-organized shipments of weapons flow across an open border with Syria. Gaza is open along the Egyptian border. The West Bank is not open and the weapons don't flow in with the same freedom.

Local arms production is a matter of know-how, but if Israeli forces are present on the ground, as they are in the West Bank, then we can stop the development and manufacture of rockets and other weapons in time.

* * *

Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan became Head of the IDF Planning Directorate in 2006. In 2008 he was appointed Commander of the Israel Air Force. He has also served in various command and staff positions, including Director of Air Force Intelligence, and Chief of Air Staff and Deputy Commander of the Israel Air Force. This Jerusalem Issue Brief is based on his presentation at the Institute for Contemporary Affairs in Jerusalem on January 15, 2008, when he still served as Head of the IDF Planning Directorate.

Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of Independent Media Review and Analsis (IMRA). Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il or write him at imra@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 16, 2008.

These are two stories about Tzviya Sariel, the teenager who was kept in prison without being tried because she refused to recognize the court system. The first is an Arutz-7 report today written by Ezra HaLevi; the second is from
http://www.israeljustice.com .

Tzviya Sariel of Elon Moreh, who has been held in jail since December for refusing to recognize the authority of the secular court system, was allowed to testify before a Torah court set up by the nascent Sanhedrin Friday. The Sanhedrin Court for Matters of People and State ordered her immediate release.

The court, headed by Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, heard Sarieli's testimony after a judge from Netanya's Magistrates Court ordered that she be allowed to attend the hearing on the limits of the youth's struggle against the Israeli judicial system. It is presumed that Netanya Magistrates Court Judge Smadar Kolander-Abramovitch hoped the Sanhedrin court would instruct Sariel to put and end to her struggle and recognize the civil courts.

The Court For Matters of People and State also heard testimony from the girl's mother, as well as Shmuel Medad of the Honenu legal assistance organization. The court concluded that Sariel's right to refuse to recognize Israeli's current justice system is justified and ruled that the only limitation to the struggle is the ability of each individual to withstand the difficulties of prison. The court also ordered that Sariel be released immediately, without any limitations. "Every day and every hour that Tzvia Sariel spends behind bars is a wrongdoing to this girl," Rabbi Ariel ruled. "Justice demands to release her immediately. It is a serious stain on the judiciary system in Israel. According to the Torah law of Israel, we are demanding her immediate release without conditions and to erase the indictment."

The hearing was marked by uncertainty over legal procedure, according to IsraelJustice.com. "Attorneys did not understand what role was given to the rabbinical court in a criminal case and whether the rabbis were granted any authority over the civil court judge who approved the procedure. Usually, Rabbinical courts are only authorized to hear cases that concern marriage and divorce. "There is a question of authorities," Honenu's Meidad explained.

Sariel was arrested in December and has been held for three months for allegedly pushing an Arab who entered her town to pick olives. Judges decided to keep her in prison without formal charges after she refused to cooperate with the secular justice system. Sariel, 18, remains in prison even after two Arab men, witnesses called by the prosecution, testified that she was not involved in the alleged physical assault.

Jabber Mahmoud Hussein, called to the stand by the Prosecution, said: "I managed to come to court twice, despite the fact that the accused didn't hit me or do anything bad to us at all...we are prepared to close this case because all we want is to harvest olives in peace."

Precedent: State of Israel Recognizes Sanhedrin

The Sanhedrin court called for the establishment of a committee to act as bridge between the state's law and Torah law, in light of the legal precedent set by the Israeli court's recognition of the court and its findings.

"It is no coincidence that the hearing took place on the anniversary of the passing of Moses our teacher, the father of Hebrew law, and close to the days of Purim, when it is said that the Jews reaccepted and affirmed their commitment to the law of the Torah," a statement from the court said.

After the verdict was read, the court's rabbis, wrapped in prayer shawls, stood and recited the special prayers accepting the justice of the Almighty, according to IsraelJustice.com: "Everyone in the courtroom followed in a loud chant to say the words, 'Hear O' Israel, the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is One,' despite an attempt by prison guards to prevent supporters, including Ruth Sariel, Tzvia's mother, from entering the hearing."

Following the hearing, the officials present from the Prisons Authority affirmed their commitment to carry out the verdict of the Sanhedrin court. Prisons' Authority warden Hila Furis reportedly told those present: "The Prisons' Authority recognizes the authority of the [Sanhedrin] court and will act to implement the verdict." They removed Sariel's leg restraints and claimed she was being brought to the Ramle Magistrates court, where she would be released before the Sabbath.

Sariel was returned to Neve Tirza Prison, however, where she spent the Sabbath. Her parents say she has been placed in solitary confinement. Rabbi Ariel said the court would continue to follow the case and work for Sariel's release, in accordance with the directives of the Netanya court.

The nascent Sanhedrin, headed by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz, was established in 2004, with the renewal of Semikha (ordination) in order to create the infrastructure necessary to fulfill the Torah obligation of reestablishing the supreme Jewish legal body of 71 Torah scholars. The Court for People and State has been one of the most active projects of the nascent Sanhedrin.

The Sanhedrin court is not, as of yet, universally accepted, even among the many streams of observant Judaism. Those now participating are committed to stepping aside when greater or more prominent scholars take their seats.

Click here for an interview with three girls recently released from prison despite their refusal to recognize the court system.

"Jewish Girl In Solitary Confinement After Rabbinical Court Orders Immediate Release"

JERUSALEM –– In what was deemed an unprecedented move, an 18 year-old Jewish girl was sent to a rabbinical court in an attempt to convince her to cooperate with the secular Israeli judiciary in a criminal case.

Tzvia Sariel was taken to a hearing before a Jerusalem Rabbinical Court which declared her to be innocent of charges of assaulting an Arab and ordered her to be immediately freed. At that point, however, prison guards spirited Tzvia to a waiting van and she was returned to prison to continue her fourth month in jail.

"This was totally unexpected," Rabbi Chaim Richmond, one of four rabbinical judges said. "In our presence, the prison warden made a call and they were expected to take Tzvia back to a civil court to be released."

The hearing on March 14 was marked by uncertainty over legal procedure. Attorneys did not understand what role was given to the rabbinical court in a criminal case and whether the rabbis were granted any authority over the civil court judge who approved the procedure. Rabbinical courts are authorized to hear cases that concern marriage and divorce.

"There is a question of authorities," Shmuel Meidad, head of the Honeinu legal aid organization said.

Tzvia has been in prison for over three months on charges of assaulting Arabs brought by the army to the Jewish community of Elon Moreh in December 2007.

In a hearing on March 5, Tzvia was sent to jail for another month despite the chief prosecution witnesses testifying that she had not participated in any assault and requesting to withdraw their complaints against her.

Human rights activists assess that Tzvia remains in prison solely because she refuses to cooperate with authorities. She has refused to identify herself, retain an attorney or submit a defense.

On March 14, Netanya Magistrates Court Judge Samdar Kolander Abramovitch issued a decision that allowed prison authorities to bring Tzvia, manacled in handcuffs and leg irons, to appear before the Rabbinical Court for Matters of the People and the State, in what was deemed an attempt to have rabbis influence Tzvia to cooperate with civil authorities.

Instead, the rabbis held a hearing on her case and issued a decision advocating her immediate release.

"Every day and every hour that Tzvia Sariel spends behind bars is a wrongdoing to this girl," Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, head of the court, said "Justice demands to release her immediately. It is a serious stain on the judiciary system in Israel. According to the Torah law of Israel, we are demanding her immediate release without conditions and to erase the indictment."

Honeinu later issued a statement adding that "the rabbinical court did not limit the refusal to recognize the authority of the civil court and that it is justified and dependant on the stamina of the young girl and her ability to withstand all the hardships in prison."

After the decision was announced, the rabbis, wrapped in tallitot or prayer shawls, immediately stood and recited the special prayers accepting the justice of the Almighty. Everyone in the courtroom followed in a loud chant to say the words, "Hear O' Israel, the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is One," despite an attempt by prison guards to prevent supporters, including Ruth Sariel, Tzvia's mother, from entering the hearing. Flustered, Prison Warden Hila Boris left to call authorities, she later said, to ask authorities about Tzvia's release.

"I've never seen anything like this in my whole life," one of the accompanying prison guards said.

In the ensuing chaos, Boris removed Tzvia's leg irons and said that she was ordered to take her back to Ramle, the city where the Neve Tirza womens' prison is located. After a copy of the rabbinical's courts decision was faxed to prison authorities, attorney Hillel Weiss attained a verbal confirmation that Tzvia would be taken directly to the Ramle Magistrates Court where she would be summarily released before the Sabbath.

"I've been ordered to take her back to Ramle but she'll be home before Shabbat," Boris said.

Instead, she was returned to solitary confinement, the fourth time she has been harshly punished during her incarceration, and was not allowed to call home.

"She's back in solitary because we haven't heard from her," Ruth Sariel said. "The redemption does not come immediately."

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Gil Ronen, March 16, 2008.

This appeared today in Arutz-Sheva

A group of young Parisian Jews interrupted Israeli President Shimon Peres's speech before a crowd of thousands in a gala evening Thursday and blamed him for the deaths of yeshiva students at Mercaz HaRav a week earlier, because of his transferring tens of thousands of assault rifles to Arab factions in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

The incident occurred towards the end of a gala evening held in honor of Mr. Peres at the Palais des Congrès in Paris. The evening consisted of a series of speeches by Jewish functionaries and French government officials, as well as artistic interludes. France's Chief Rabbi Joseph Chaim Sitruk implored Peres to keep Jerusalem united and whole.

Peres got up to speak at the end of the evening. He described the cooperation between France and Israel as "wonderful" and at a certain point mentioned that his visit had begun with a memorial prayer at a synagogue for the eight yeshiva boys who were massacred at Mercaz HaRav in Jerusalem a week earlier.

'You killed them!'

At this point a Jewish man stood up and shouted at Peres: "Thousands of Israelis were murdered because of you since Oslo!" As part of the Oslo accords, the Rabin-Peres government transferred tens of thousands of assault rifles to Yasser Arafat's forces reasoning that Arafat would help defend Israel by fighting other Arab terror factions.

Then ten young people also stood up and began to shout "traitor" in Hebrew ("boged!"). They also accused Peres of being responsible for the killing of the eight Mercaz Harav students. "Your guns killed them!," they shouted.

According to an eyewitness, Peres replied to the youths: "I don't know who you are to say who is traitor and who is not, but if you speak so loudly, this shows that you are a fringe minority."

After a full 15 minutes, the youths were evicted from the hall by security guards who were employed by the Jewish community.

'Acts of louts'

The main Jewish organizations in France issued a joint condemnation of the action Friday. In the press release, CRIF, the umbrella representative of French Jewish organizations, the Central Consistoire and the Unified Jewish Social Fund said they "condemn the acts of louts."

The three Jewish organizations said the troublemakers "represent only a fringe minority, clearly identified, whose acts are contrary to the values of Judaism and which has cast itself out of society."

They called on all Jewish organizations "to refuse any relation with these people."

Speeches skipped 30 years

David Shapira, who represents the Jewish National Fund in Paris and who witnessed the event, called the incident "disgraceful." Shapira said that in all of the speeches made throughout the evening, the speakers made a point of not mentioning the Oslo accords.

In fact, Shapira said, all of the speakers mentioned Peres' involvement in purchasing French weapons and fighter jets for Israel in the 1950s and 1960s, his part in securing French aid in the construction of the Israeli nuclear plant in Dimona, and the fact that he approved the spectacular Entebbe counter-terror raid in 1976. "From there they skipped more than 30 years forward, to his election as President," Shapira said. "It was as if they were making a very clear effort not to mention any of the more controversial parts of Peres's biography."

Betwen 3,000 and 4,000 people attended the gala evening, which marked the end of the Israeli president's five day state visit to France. Tickets were free of charge.

The incident seems to have gone unreported in the Israeli press but received some coverage in the French Jewish press.

Gil Ronen writes for Arutz-Sheva.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 16, 2008.

Last week I mocked Condoleezza Rice, who –– when testifying before a Congressional committee –– answered a question with regard to statements in favor of terrorism that Abbas had made by saying that she knew that Abbas was committed to the peace process and rejected violence.

The group Rice was speaking before was the US House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, chaired by Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D).

Congresswoman Lowey had, with eminent good sense, moved to freeze $150 million that Bush wanted to go straight to the PA.

But after hearing Rice, who gave heartfelt testimony to the peaceful and sincere intentions of Abbas, she decided to release $100 million of the money.


This a portion of her released statement, which was addressed to Secretary Rice:

"I placed a hold on the $150 million in cash transfer assistance for the PA because of specific process requirements that had not been fulfilled by the State Department and USAID –– specifically receiving a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement...and a certification that the conditions...had been met. I also expressed concern about President Abbas's commitment to peace in light of his recent comments.

"I have since received a copy of the draft Memorandum of Agreement and your assurance that the Palestinian leadership is committed to peace with Israel. While I remain skeptical about the political will of a Palestinian leadership that all too often lapses into inflammatory rhetoric that belies their stated commitment to peace, I want no one to doubt the commitment of the United States to pursue peace when Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas have once again publicly affirmed their commitment to the peace process. Based on these events, I lifted the hold on $100 million in cash transfer assistance. Madam Secretary, I have maintained my hold on the additional $50 million pending the certification that I understand is forthcoming."


So, it falls to us, my friends, to provide Congresswoman Lowey with information and expressions of concern that will bolster her reservations. Rather than being focused on making sure that no one should doubt the commitment of the US to pursue peace when Olmert and Abbas are committed to it, she must be helped to see that the current negotiations will not lead to peace and that certainly in the case of Abbas, the commitment is not real (while Olmert is without a mandate from the electorate).


Congresswoman Lowey is from the 18th district of NY (which includes parts of Westchester and Rockland County).

Good to contact her, in any case, as a US citizen –– and I strongly encourage this. But it is a certainty that she is more receptive to her own constituents. If you are in the 18th district of NY, please contact her and let her know that you are in her constituency. If you know people who live in her district, even if you do not live there, please ask them to contact her.

Phone: 202-225-6506 Ask for Matt Dennis, Congressional Aide
Fax: 202-225-0546 Address the fax to Matt Dennis, Congressional Aide


Remember that numbers count. In your own words (and keep it simple):

Offer appreciation to Congresswoman Lowey for her caution in dealing with the matter of allocations for the PA, and her reservations regarding Abbas's commitment to peace.

Express your own deep concerns regarding the release of money to the PA because all past experience indicates that it is likely to be severely misused, and some part of it end up in terrorist hands.

Emphasize that there is strong evidence for Abbas's lack of commitment to peace, no matter what he says for western ears. Pick one or two of these to address:

–– The textbooks used in the PA don't accept Israel as legitimate and encourage martyrdom and Jihad. "Your enemies seek life and you seek death..." one 8th grade text tells them. Share the link to my report on this, if you fax:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID= 0B3C0C2C-B7B8-4951-8CCB-256547645735

–– Abbas will not relinquish the "right of return" or recognize Israel as a Jewish state, so his saying he's for a "two state solution" is a farce.

–– On March 8, the official PA daily, Al Hayat Al Jadida, placed a photo of the terrorist, Alaa Abu D'heim, who murdered the eight students at Yeshivat Mercaz Harav, on its front page, and conferred upon him the title Shahid (holy Islamic Martyr), a designation of the highest honor.

–– Al Aksa Martyr's Brigades –– a terrorist arm of Abbas's Fatah party –– has not been disbanded, and not been required to surrender its arms. Some members of the Brigades are incorporated into the PA security forces.

–– There is documentation that PA security forces don't receive direct orders to take on terrorists.

–– There are reports that Fatah has agreed to meet with Hamas in Yemen to settle differences. This undercuts all notions of supporting Fatah as a moderate foil to Hamas.


At the end of this posting, I provide the names of the members of Congresswoman Lowey's subcommittee. If you are a constituent of one of these, please also contact him or her.


On Friday, three Kassams were shot into Israel. Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna'i was in Sderot when two rockets came in, and he was forced to seek shelter.


Following this, we carried out two strikes from the air, in the course of which three members of Islamic Jihad –– members of a cell preparing to launch a rocket –– were killed and six others wounded.

According to reports, those who were killed were from the cell that launched the rocket that caused eight-year old Osher Tuito of Sderot to lose his leg.

One of those taken out –– Muhammad Sha'ar –– was in charge of rocket production for IJ.


In the course of one of these operations, Hamas shot at an Israeli Apache helicopter with one or more machine guns. The helicopter was only lightly damaged and made it back to base without difficulty. However, this is worrisome.

Hamas –– which has now vowed to keep Israeli aircraft within its sites –– is believed to have more than a dozen Russian machine guns and to have set up an anti-aircraft unit. The unit may have been smuggled in, but there is reason to believe (and this is what Hamas itself is claiming) that the unit was secured from Fatah headquarters when Hamas took over Gaza last June.

Meanwhile, Islamic Jihad today announced that it had developed a rocket that reaches 22 kilometers, which is beyond Ashkelon.

I hope all of those who want to delay the major operation into Gaza –– and all of those who think it's a constructive move to supply the PA in Judea and Samaria with more weapons –– are factoring in this information as they make their decisions.


Al Aksa Brigades has distributed a leaflet in the Ramallah area that said: "We renew our call to President Abbas to fire Salaam Fayyad and form a new government that would not abandon the armed struggle." Al Aksa is suggesting that Abbas "open a new page" with Hamas, and stop all coordination with Israel, including with regard to security.


But it's not just the Brigades –– it's others in Fatah as well, who are angry about the government of technocrats, with Fayyad as prime minister, that Abbas established after the break with Hamas. They are greatly unhappy with Fayyad's attempts at financial reform, and about the fact that they are not securing enough positions. They've warned Abbas that there will be a revolt against him unless he lets Fayyad go.

Khaled Abu Toameh of the Post reports that there has been tremendous behind-the-scenes tension between Fayyad and Abbas since reports surfaced that the US wanted to see Abbas replaced by Fayyad.


According to Abu Toameh, the general impression that Fatah sides with the US and Israel rather than with its brothers in Gaza is a major factor in a continuing weakening of the PA.

Rice, whose only goal in life seems to be pushing those peace accords, and who is lacking in all sophisticated comprehension of what's going on in this part of the world, has exacerbated this with her insistence that Abbas return to the negotiating table without securing demanded concessions that Israel agree to a ceasefire.

In spite of his saying he would return, actually, negotiations have not yet resumed, and many within Fatah are demanding that he not come back to the table.


Vice Premier Haim Ramon (Kadima) says that we must dismantle outposts immediately.

What he actually said was that "If [US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice] says they should have been dismantled yesterday, we cannot leave them for a few more months."

And there you have it! This goes to the heart of the trouble we're in right now –– this rush to do what a US official wants of us, rather than what might be in Israel's long-term best interesting. Disgusting and shameful, is it not?

(In due course, as time and other issues allow, I still hope to return to that discussion about settlements.)


I recommend here an editorial from the Post that addresses the injustice of how the world responds to us:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid= 1205420684146&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.


And additionally, a commentary by Aaron Lerner of IMRA, regarding that ground action in Gaza:



The members of the allocations subcommittee follow here.

Adam Schiff (D-CA 29th) Phone: 202-225-4176 Fax: 202-225-5828
Steve Israel (D-NY 2nd) Phone: 202-225-3335 Fax: 202-225-4669
Ben Chandler (D-KY 6th) Phone: 202-225-4706 Fax: 202-225-2122
Steven R. Rothman (D-NJ 9th) Phone: 202-225-5061 Fax: 202-225-5851
Barbara Lee (D-CA 9th) Phone: 202-225-2661 Fax: 202-225-9817
Betty McCollum (D-MN 4th) Phone: 202-225-6631 Fax: 202-225-1968
Frank Wolf (Ranking Rep. VA 10th) Phone: 202-225-5136 Fax: 202-225-0437
Joe Knollenberg (R-MI 9th) Phone: 202-225-5802 Fax: 202-225-2356
Mark Steven Kirk (R-IL 10th) Phone: 202-225-4835 Fax: 202-226-0837
Ander Crenshaw (R-FL 4th) Phone: 202-225-2501 Fax: 202-225-2504
Dave Weldon (R-FL 15th) Phone: 202-225-3671 Fax: 202-225-3516

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 15, 2008.

Arik Ascherman (Tomer Appelbaum)

Some will remember that "rabbi" Ascherman's crusade was decrying the IDF's cutting the branches of olive trees that the arabs were using to hide in, in order to shoot at Jews. He railed that the IDF destroyed arabs' trees, called for them to be replaced, and never said a word on behalf of all of Jews' trees and crops that were destroyed by arabs.

This is called "Police arrest rabbi for 'inciting Palestinians' in East Jerusalem." It was written by Meron Rapoport, Haaretz Correspondent and it appeared yesterday in Haaretz

Israel Police on Thursday arrested Arik Ascherman, the executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights, for "inciting Palestinians to oppose the police" in East Jerusalem.

Heated tensions between residents of the Silwan village in East Jerusalem and the Israel Police erupted over excavation works that have recently began in the village. The excavations are being carried out by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) and are sponsored by Elad association, which promotes the "Judaization" of East Jerusalem.

Silwan residents say the excavation work is being carried out directly underneath their homes, and have proceeded to set up a demonstration tent on a private lot belonging to one of the village residents. A few confrontations subsequently broke out, and the residents maintained that the police deliberately harassed them.

On Wednesday another spat occurred between the local residents and settlers on behalf of Elad, and the police detained Ascherman for questioning.

The police requested that Ascherman promise to stay away from Silwan for 15 days and upon his refusal to oblige, he was arrested and will be brought in front of a judge Friday for his remand to be extended.

Ascherman's attorney on Thursday said the investigator had accused her client, a well-known human rights' activist, of encouraging Palestinians to oppose police forces, and also of preventing the evacuation of a wounded settler to hospital.

The attorney further stated that Ascherman adamantly denies the allegations.

"This is a ridiculous arrest," his attorney said. "In the past, the court has refused to adhere to police demands for issuing restraining orders against Israeli activists in Silwan."

Editor's Note: Many of the comments supported his pro-Arab stance –– 'it showed his humanity', 'he was an inspiration' to them –– although one retorted sarcastically "Yes, Rabbi Ascherman is an inspiration All of us Jew-haters get great inspiration and comfort from this man." But some of the readers' comments help round out our understanding of Ascherman's character and activities:

Title: Double talking Ascherman
Name: Slibovitz
City: State:

I have met and heard Ascherman on several occasions. He is slick and exudes charm, but repeatedly gets caught with anti-Zionists.

Unlike his compatriots in RHR, Ascherman routinely appears in anti-Israel propaganda films, many with anti-Semitic overtones, some explicit. In public he denies giving permission for this material to be used, yet does nothing to stop it.

To Jewish audiences, particularly in the West, he talks of making Israel a more just place and looking out for the rights of the Palestinians. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is very laudible.

To non-Jewish audiences, he does the same demonization of Israel that our enemies do. He rarely acknowledges that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself. He assoicates with some very negative figures.

He does some good work, but given his history, if he is being accused of incitement, I would believe it.

Title: The true Children of Israel
Name: Layla
City: Nazareth State:

God blesses and preserves Rabbi Arik Ascherman and those like him to remind us of how the true Children of Israel are to respond to His call.

First thing tomorrow, I will be visiting my local church to to light a candle in your honour Rabbi. Thank you for restoring my hope in our common future. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

Title: Ascherman supports Arabs only!!!
Name: Dr. Jack
City: State: Canada

Just for everyone`s information, Ascherman is pro-Palestinian and anti-Jewish!!

A few years ago, I asked him to ALSO support the rights of Jews expelled from Moslem countries, the same way he supports the rights of Palestinians and Arabs. Both the "Rabbi" and the Board of HRH refused in writing to do so, because it "wasn't a issue they were interested to address".

Anyone can contact them and ask the same question. They will either ignore you, or refuse to support the Jewish rights.

Just try, and let the readers know.

Ha'aretz reporters could do the same, if they print this letter, which I hope!!

Title: #1 Maureen Ann –– Do you any foggy idea about Silwan?
Name: * BEN JABO
City: USA State:

You are totally ignorant of what Silwan was and is –– It was a community that was populated by Yemenite Jews who were forced out during the 1936 riots –– The Rabbi is defending a bunch of thieves ––

May the Rabbis will bless you with some courage so you can finally take the flight you promised to make –– You haven`t gotten any courage from your minister/priest, just maybe a Jew can help!!

Before you depart, do penance for living on the land stolen from the Aborigines –– Silwan awaits your mounting the barricades on their behalf ––

Title: a rabbi or rights activist?
Name: K
City: State:

If someone calls himself a rabbi then I would expect that his purpose would be to deal with spiritual matters concerning his congregation. A rabbi is an intermediary between God and the rabbi`s followers. However this person has taken it upon himself to enter in a sphere of activity which does not fall into this category. In fact his actions can be deemed as being harmful and dangerous to his co-religionists. If Ascherman sees himself as a political activist on behalf of Palestinians then he should unequivocally state that his beliefs in human rights for those who are engaged in mortal conflict with his fellow Jews supersedes his belief in the continued existence of the Jewish people as embodied in the state of Israel and their historic right to survival as a people. I think, then we may be clearer as to his genuine intentions.

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, March 15, 2008.

This was written by Roger Hardy of BBC and it appeared on the BBC website:

The world's anti-terrorism experts met for a conference in Stockholm this week and, as Roger Hardy, the BBC's Islamic Affairs analyst, found, optimism was in short supply.

As the event began –– at a conference centre overlooking the famous Stockholm waterfront –– we stood in silent commemoration of the victims of the Madrid train bombings of 2004.

It was a sign, had we needed one, that we were gathered in the Swedish capital to discuss one of the most important and difficult issues of our time.

The participants came at the topic from every angle.

There were senior soldiers and policemen, intelligence professionals, diplomats, think-tank experts, a handful of journalists –– and, on the fringes, salesmen eager to explain the latest gadgets, designed to make us feel safer in a dangerous world.

Counter insurgency

Our common concern was how do you defeat an insurgency –– and the phrase invoked more than once was T E Lawrence's dictum that it is like eating soup with a knife.

He, after all, was in a position to know, having led a much-romanticised Arab insurgency against the Turks in the First World War.

US troops on foot patrol in Baghdad, 10 March 2008 Many experts see the "ideas war" to be as important as the battlefield Insurgencies of course are not new.

At one point, delegates trooped off to see that classic Sixties film The Battle of Algiers –– the moral of which is that a Western country, however powerful (and even one that is ready to resort to torture) will fail to crush an insurgency if it faces determined popular resistance.

Now the West and its allies are trying to adapt the lessons drawn from past insurgencies to help them fight a new kind of war.

Even defining the conflict is problematic. US President George W Bush dubbed it the "war on terror".

Others now prefer to call it a "global insurgency". Still others think that term is not quite right either.

Ideological struggle

But whatever it is, it is posing a whole host of dilemmas for those who are fighting it.

Above all, this new war is being fought, not just on the battlefield, but in the mind.

The West and its Islamist adversaries are competing for Muslim opinion –– and that means Muslim opinion in Birmingham and Jakarta, as well as Baghdad and Kabul.

So in this battle for hearts and minds, how do you protect law-abiding Muslims, while continuing to capture or kill the violent ones?

And can you be sure you can tell the difference?

One British defence expert remarked: "We're not looking for a needle in a haystack –– we're looking for a piece of straw in a haystack."

Everyone is having to reinvent their traditional role.

Soldiers are no longer just fighters but nation-builders.

Policemen must visit mosques and explain what they do to sceptical Muslim congregations.

Intelligence people are trying to get into the minds of an enemy they only dimly understand.

Government departments can no longer operate as "stovepipes" –– the favourite jargon nowadays for agencies which do not co-operate with one another and sometimes do not even speak to one another.

It is clear there are still significant differences of approach –– not least between the Americans, who tend to see terrorism as a form of war, and the Europeans, who tend to see it as a form of crime.

And, as the conference made plain, Europeans are far from being united in their perception of Muslim radicalism in Europe –– and how their governments and societies should respond to it.

Pessimistic predictions

There is an abiding fear of social division.

The Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad polarised Muslim and non-Muslim opinion in Europe –– and now there are fears that a film about the Koran, made by a right-wing Dutch politician, could do the same.

As for those salesmen for whom the conference was essentially a marketing opportunity, I had to confess to being technically challenged.

I never did master "predictive analytics" –– and my favourite bit of gobbledy-gook was "open computer forensics architecture" –– or OCFA for short.

And if, like me, you do an internet search for it, you may not end up much the wiser.

What struck me most, in three days of debate, was the degree of pessimism about the task at hand.

Yes, there has been a learning curve.

It is now widely recognised that Muslim hearts and minds matter and that military successes mean little if the battle of ideas is being lost.

But there is still a long way to go.

This came home to me when I spoke to an American military man who had helped produce the US Counter-Insurgency Manual.

How long did he think the "long war" –– as many now call it –– would last?

It is the kind of question journalists ask, and I did not expect that he would put a number on it.

But he did. "Thirty years if we get it right," he said. "A hundred years if we get it wrong."

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, March 15, 2008.

From http://derstandard.at/

According to a report in today's "Der Standard" Austrian researchers have found the grave of a child in a Roman cemetry in Burgenland [the easternmost part of Austria] dating back to the third century. In the child's grave was a golden amulet with an inscription in Greek of the "Shema Yisroel...'

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, March 14, 2008.

Geert Wilder is considered a racist and anti-Semite. Despite this he seems to receive the support of certain member of the Dutch Jewish community. Truth is, I have never held it against a goy that he is an anti-Semite. It is just their nature. As to racism, all humans are racist to some extent. It is really our nature to believe that whatever we are is the best and anything different is inferior. Of course turning those attitudes into oppressive laws or genocide is a different matter altogether. So give Geert a chance. Peace and tolerance will not stop the Islamic hoards that's for sure.

Geert Wilder's speech to Holland's Parliament

"Madam Speaker, allow me, first, to express my sincere thanks to you personally for having planned a debate on Islam on the very day of my birthday. I could not have wished for a nicer present! Madam Speaker, approximately 1400 years ago war was declared on us by an ideology of hate and violence which arose at the time and was proclaimed by a barbarian who called himself the Prophet Mohammed. I am referring to Islam.

Madam Speaker, let me start with the foundation of the Islamic faith, the Koran. The Koran's core theme is about the duty of all Muslims to fight non-Muslims; an Islamic Mein Kampf, in which fight means war, jihad. The Koran is above all a book of war –– a call to butcher non-Muslims (2:191, 3:141, 4:91, 5:3), to roast them (4:56, 69:30-69:32), and to cause bloodbaths amongst them (47:4). Jews are compared to monkeys and pigs (2:65, 5:60, 7:166), while people who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God must according to the Koran be fought (9:30).

Madam Speaker, the West has no problems with Jews or Christians, but it does have problems with Islam. It is still possible, even today, for Muslims to view the Koran, which they regard as valid for all time, as a licence to kill. And that is exactly what happens. The Koran is worded in such a way that its instructions are addressed to Muslims for eternity, which includes today's Muslims. This in contrast to texts in the Bible, which is formulated as a number of historical narratives, placing events in a distant past. Let us remind ourselves that it was Muslims, not Jews or Christians, who committed the catastrophic terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London; and that it was no coincidence that Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered by a Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri.

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that there are people who call themselves Muslims and who respect our laws. My party, the Freedom Party, has nothing against such people, of course. However, the Koran does have something against them. For it is stated in the Koran in Sura 2, verse 85, that those believers who do not believe in everything the Koran states will be humiliated and receive the severest punishment; which means that they will roast in Hell. In other words, people who call themselves Muslims but who do not believe, for example, in Sura 9, verse 30, which states that Jews and Christians must be fought, or, for example, in Sura 5, verse 38, which states that the hand of a thief must be cut off, such people will be humiliated and roast in Hell. Note that it is not me who is making this up. All this can be found in the Koran. The Koran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Koran are in fact apostates, and we know what has to happen to apostates. They have to be killed.

Madam Speaker, the Koran is a book that incites to violence. I remind the House that the distribution of such texts is unlawful according to Article 132 of our Penal Code. In addition, the Koran incites to hatred and calls for murder and mayhem. The distribution of such texts is made punishable by Article 137(e). The Koran is therefore a highly dangerous book; a book which is completely against our legal order and our democratic institutions. In this light, it is an absolute necessity that the Koran be banned for the defence and reinforcement of our civilisation and our constitutional state. I shall propose a second-reading motion to that effect.

Madam Speaker, there is no such thing as "moderate Islam"... As Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said the other day, and I quote, "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it"... Islam is in pursuit of dominance. It wishes to exact its imperialist agenda by force on a worldwide scale (8:39). This is clear from European history. Fortunately, the first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at Poitiers in 732; the second in Vienna in 1683. Madam Speaker, let us ensure that the third Islamic invasion, which is currently in full spate, will be stopped too in spite of its insidious nature and notwithstanding the fact that, in contrast to the 8th and 17th centuries, it has no need for an Islamic army because the scared "dhimmis" in the West, also those in Dutch politics, have left their doors wide open to Islam and Muslims.

Apart from conquest, Madam Speaker, Islam is also bent on installing a totally different form of law and order, namely Sharia law. This makes Islam, apart from a religion for hundreds of millions of Muslims also, and in particular, a political ideology (with political/constitutional/Islamic basic values, etc). Islam is an ideology without any respect for others; not for Christians, not for Jews, not for non-believers and not for apostates. Islam aims to dominate, subject, kill and wage war.

Madam Speaker, the Islamic incursion must be stopped. Islam is the Trojan Horse in Europe. If we do not stop Islamification now, Eurabia and Netherabia will just be a matter of time. One century ago, there were approximately 50 Muslims in the Netherlands. Today, there are about 1 million Muslims in this country. Where will it end? We are heading for the end of European and Dutch civilisation as we know it. Where is our Prime Minister in all this? In reply to my questions in the House he said, without batting an eyelid, that there is no question of our country being Islamified. Now, this reply constituted a historical error as soon as it was uttered. Very many Dutch citizens, Madam Speaker, experience the presence of Islam around them. And I can report that they have had enough of burkas, headscarves, the ritual slaughter of animals, so-called honour revenge, blaring minarets, female circumcision, hymen restoration operations, abuse of homosexuals, Turkish and Arabic on the buses and trains as well as on town hall leaflets, halal meat at grocery shops and department stores, Sharia exams, the