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

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

Posted by Yehuda Halevi, March 31, 2010.

Twilight envelops the old city of Jerusalem

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


Passover is one of the three pilgrimage festivals of the Jewish year. When the Temple stood on Mt. Moriah, Jews from across the region would walk to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices and participate in festivities and prayer. I can only imagine how these weary travelers felt as they crested the final hill on their long, arduous journey and saw their destination — the holy city of Jerusalem — laid out before them.

Of course it looked a lot different back then. For one, what we now call the "old city" was the entire city. And there were no electric lights to illuminate the city's ancient walls. This photograph features a twilight view of new and old Jerusalem from the Haas Promenade in Talpiot. As with many other photographs, selecting a specific time to photograph makes a huge difference in both the appearance and feel of the image. At twilight, there is a mix of waning daylight, still visible in the light blue sky, and artificial light, which only impacts the scene as the sky darkens. At this time of day, the light changes so quickly that only a photograph can capture and preserve it to be appreciated in another moment. Moadim L'simcha.

Technical Data: Nikon D300, 18-200 zoom at 95 mm, f8 at 1/5sec.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, March 31, 2010.

This was written by Steven M. Goldberg, a trial lawyer in Los Angeles who is involved in a number of Jewish organizations, including Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors. It was published today in American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/ israels_crisis_and_opportunity.html


Rahm Emanuel famously proclaimed, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Ironically, although the President's Chief of Staff has proven to be a false friend of Israel, the leadership of the Jewish State would do well to heed his advice.

That Israel is in peril is obvious. Israel's enemies sense the opportunity to destroy it through a perfect storm, a confluence of events that seem to leave Israel reeling and vulnerable. First and foremost is the unmistakable betrayal by the President of the United States, who has loudly broadcast his eagerness to sacrifice the security of the Jewish State to appease the Muslim world. Israel is under enormous duress to surrender vital territory to allow for the creation of a Palestinian state within its borders. That such a development would be catastrophic for Israel is apparent to anyone who knows history. As former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin stated, "The Palestinian state can only emerge on the ruins of Israel."

In addition, Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons, and it is clear that the international community will do nothing to stop it. President Obama appears to be pressuring Israel to refrain from military action to stop the Iranian threat. Hezb'allah and Hamas have restocked their arsenals of rockets and missiles, which now threaten to reach the center of Israel, including Tel Aviv. The European Union is championing the Fayed Plan, pursuant to which the Palestinian Authority would unilaterally announce the establishment of the Palestinian state, which would shortly thereafter be recognized by the United Nations Security Council. In view of President Obama's indifference and even antipathy to Israel, the United States cannot be counted on to exercise its veto.

Ominous as all this seems, Israel has the opportunity to seize the moment and secure its future. The actions required are not for the faint of heart.

With regard to Iran, Israel can let the United States know in no uncertain terms that it will take military action against Iran, with or without American assistance. If the Obama administration balks, and perhaps even threatens to withhold military hardware to Israel that might be necessary for a successful conventional strike, Israel can advise the United States, discreetly yet firmly, that it has non-conventional options, i.e., tactical nuclear weapons.

Such an admonition is not unprecedented. It has been reported that in 1973, during the first desperate hours of the Yom Kippur War, Prime Minister Golda Meir warned the Nixon administration that Israel would have no choice but to resort to the nuclear option if conventional military resupplies were not forthcoming. Shortly after this communication by the Israeli Prime Minister, the Americans provided the assistance the Israelis needed to turn the tide in the war.

The situation is equally dire now. The possibility that Israel will resort to tactical nuclear weapons against Iran should be sufficient to convince the Obama administration to support Israel's attack with conventional weapons. If not, however, Israel must be prepared to carry out its threat. Failure against Iran is not an option.

With regard to the Palestinians, Israel need not sit idly by as the Palestinians carry out their threat to have the United Nations impose the creation of a Palestinian state, which would run afoul of the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap, which require a negotiated agreement by the parties, not an imposed solution.

A cardinal legal principle is that the violation of a contract by one party entitles the other party to rescind the contract. The Palestinians have repeatedly flouted both the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap. Israel can and should declare that those agreements have been abrogated. In their place, Israel can announce its annexation of Judea and Samaria. The Arabs residing in Palestinian cities will receive full civil and religious rights, but not political rights, which would be consistent with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 as well as the Mandate for Palestine that was adopted by the League of Nations in 1922 and ratified by the United States in 1924.

As for a Palestinian state, Israel would declare that issue to be dead as a doornail. Any such entity, if it is to be created, will be carved out of neighboring Arab lands, not out of the tiny piece of land afforded the Jewish State.

The international condemnation that will follow will be great, but history teaches that it will be short-lived. The world will be a different place after an attack on Iran, and much of the international community will be silently grateful to Israel for ridding the Middle East of the Iranian menace. Anti-Semitism will never be eradicated, and thus Israel will always have enemies, but those enemies can be kept at bay if, and only if, they are convinced that Israel has demonstrated the will to do whatever is necessary to prevail.

Converting Israel's crisis into an opportunity will require extraordinary leadership. Israel's leaders will need strategic vision, decisiveness, steady nerves, unflinching determination, and absolute confidence in the justice of the cause. American Jewry will also have a critical role to play. We will need to dig deep, find our inner strength, coalesce, and defend the Jewish nation. There is, however, no choice. It is a matter of life or death.

Doris Wise Montrose is with Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors. Contact her at doris@cjhsla.org.

To Go To Top

Posted by Midenise, March 31, 2010.

TORONTO — "Reading this book made me want to go to Palestine and kill Israelis," commented a teenaged girl who "likes Jews" and has attended three Bat Mitzvahs. Her comments on the book she refers to — The Shepherd's Granddaughter by Anne Laurel Carter — can be found on the book-promoting goodreads.com web site

On the same site, another young student who read it compared the Israeli regime to Nazis.

As a quick read of the book shows, The Shepherd's Granddaughter is a work of fiction based on the political situation in the West Bank that demonizes the Jewish state, presenting a completely one-sided, pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel view with absolutely no balance or background information. For example, in the novel, the Israelis poisoned the likeable Palestinian protagonist's sheep for no reason, and the driver of a bulldozer tried to run her over. The Palestinians are portrayed as completely innocent and helpless victims, while the cruel Israelis pursue a goal of ethnic cleansing.

The book came to the attention of the Jewish Tribune through writer Brian Henry, a contributor to this paper. The father of a Grade 6 student in the public school system, his open letter of concern to Ontario's education minister is on page 14.

Recognized as a Book of the Year for children by the Canadian Library Association (CLA) and nominated for the prestigious Red Maple Award 2010 (geared to grades 7 and 8) of the Ontario Library Association (OLA), The Shepherd's Granddaughter is highly recommended by Toronto District School Board (TDSB) teachers and librarians. The Jewish Tribune, after seeing Henry's letter, picked up the book — which was in high demand — at a local library. There were 44 copies of the book in circulation in Toronto libraries and only one was available.

The CLA did not return any calls on this issue before publication deadline.

According to Shelagh Paterson, OLA's executive director, "the committee did not think this was propaganda; otherwise, it wouldn't have been chosen."

She defended the choice with the assertion that children in the Red Maple program could "pick their favourite author. They don't have to read all the books. It is not part of the curriculum. It's recreational book club material and encourages love of reading and discussion.... Usually discussions are welcome. Teachers help sort out thoughts."

Ruth Dameron, a teacher at Eitz Chaim's middle school who is not a member of the Jewish community, said: "I find it difficult to believe that this book, which [I think] encourages antisemitism, is being circulated in Ontario schools for young, impressionable children.

"Every teacher has a different perspective on politics, therefore, how could the OLA be so sure that a teacher would necessarily provide another point of view or challenge the message in the book?"

"I don't know of any books that are balanced or unbiased," Paterson declared. "I think the best opportunity to be exposed to controversial issues is when they're learning. The committee does carefully select [each book]... It is not setting out to upset anyone. They want to ensure there's a richness to it."

Asked whether the committee would have considered a compelling and well-written work of fiction with an equally biased message against another ethnic group — for example, insinuating that African-Americans are intellectually inferior — she responded: "They read To Kill a Mockingbird." (To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee, published in 1960, is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning novel taught widely in North American schools. Its message is a powerful condemnation of racial injustice.)

Trustee James Pasternak (York Centre) said that he "received a complaint and forwarded it over to our executive director of equity, Lloyd McKell. He said it was starting to get on our radar screen. We're going to be reading it.

"The initial reports are that this book is disconcerting to us and it is unbalanced political propaganda. However, senior staff is looking into it. We have a responsibility to follow up on all complaints and this is one of them. We will take it very seriously. We have very strict rules governing political activity in schools. Everyone must abide by them regardless of their political views. We would vigorously forbid the distribution of materials that smacked of political agendas, especially views from conflict zones."

McKell was out of town and unavailable for comment.

Shari Schwartz-Maltz, the Toronto board's manager of media, said there is a formal process for parents to deal with this kind of situation and the first thing they should do is discuss it with the school principal. She was unaware of any formal complaint.

"Decisions about the use of books are the responsibility of the school board," asserted Gary Wheeler, a spokesperson for the Ontario education ministry. "District school boards select and approve all supplementary learning resources. Boards and schools have their own internal procedures for selecting and approving various books and resources."

"It concerns me that this book is getting positive reviews and students are reading it without any guidance," said Associated Hebrew Schools librarian Bev Birkan. "This is one book that definitely should have unbiased adult supervision."

"I'm Israeli," said Ettie Stubbs, president of the Association of Jewish Libraries. The book "neglected to mention any background. Kids that know nothing about the conflict will read it and that is the impression they will get."

Ross Virgo, spokesperson for the York Region District School Board, was "very familiar with the book. We have provided some advice to our teachers and librarians. It is considered to be a sensitive issues text, raising subject matter and concepts that merit some informed, contextual discussion. They would certainly understand that it carries a distinctive point of view."

The book "was researched by the OLA, which is fairly representative of Canadian communities," he added. "We have 162 elementary schools and I believe it is probably in many of the school libraries."

Frank Dimant, B'nai Brith Canada's executive vice-president, has written to the provincial education minister calling for the removal of the book, which is "so clearly biased against Israel," from any school's recommended reading list. "This is not just a matter of political differences with Israeli policy. Having these types of one-sided books in the classroom marginalizes Jewish children and is definitely not in the spirit of the TDSB, which recently banned the hate-fest known as 'Israeli Apartheid Week' from its schools."

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Stephen Kramer, March 31, 2010.

In its March 26, 2010 editorial: "Mr. Obama and Israel," the New York Times advocated the administration's take on the Middle East without scant hesitation. In my opinion, President Obama's strategy and tactics endanger Israel. The Times editorial is especially destructive because many NYT readers rely on the paper for their information, and consequent opinion, on the complicated Middle East. Along with my criticism of Obama's demands and their reiteration by the Times, I've included excerpts from other American media sources poking holes in the administration's strategy on Israel.

NYT Editorial: "But after a cabinet meeting on Friday, Mr. Netanyahu and his right-wing government still insisted that they would not change their policy of building homes in the city, including East Jerusalem, which Palestinians hope to make the capital of an independent state.

President Obama made pursuing a peace deal a priority and has been understandably furious at Israel's response. He correctly sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a factor in wider regional instability."

Comments: Simply because the Palestinians hope to make Jerusalem their capital is no reason for Israel to stop construction in its capital city, where it's been building for 3,000 years. Yes, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a factor in wider regional instability, but the much bigger factor is simply Israel's existence. The Arabs will continue to agitate against the Jewish state regardless of the construction policy in the city. Elliot Abrams, Weekly Standard, March 27: "The Islamists are not interested in '1967 issues' related to Israel's size, but in '1948 issues' related to Israel's existence. If henceforth we mean to engage such people rather than to defeat them, Israel's existence — not its settlement policy — comes into play."

Editorial: "Palestinians are justifiably worried that these [construction] projects nibble away at the land available for their future state. The disputes [initiated by President Obama] with Israel have made Mr. Obama look weak and have given Palestinians and Arab leaders an excuse to walk away from the proximity talks (in which Mr. Obama's Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, would shuttle between Jerusalem and Ramallah) that Washington nurtured."

Comments: Netanyahu's 10-month freeze on building beyond the Green Line (1949 armistice line), excluding Jerusalem, was accepted by the administration. Secretary of State Clinton announced (November 2, 2009): "What the prime minister has offered in specifics on restraints on a policy of settlements ... is unprecedented [in a positive way]." Clinton made it clear that she wasn't pleased with Israeli settlement construction but that it was no reason to hold up talks. "There are always demands made in any negotiation that are not going to be fully realized," she said. In a January, 2010 interview Charlie Rose interviewed George Mitchell, who said, "The Israelis are not going to stop settlements in, or construction in East Jerusalem. They don't regard that as a settlement because they think it's part of Israel. ... It's what they regard as their country. They don't say they're letting us go ahead when we build in Manhattan."

Editorial: "We hope Israel is being pressed to at least temporarily halt building in East Jerusalem as a sign of good faith. Jerusalem's future must be decided in negotiations."

Comments: Israel is being pressed to meet demands that the Palestinians didn't insist on until President Obama pressed the issue. It is the administration that has prevented negotiations by being more "Palestinian" than the Palestinians. Israel has been asked to make numerous concessions to signal its good faith, while the Palestinians are not required to make any concessions. (Let's not forget the responses Israel received for past concessions, such as the retreat from Gaza, where Hamas now rules a terrorist regime intent on taking over both the West Bank and Israel.) Wesley Pruden, Washington Times (March 26): "Democrats were once regarded as the best friends Israel had — Harry S. Truman, a Democratic president and a Southern Baptist, was the first head of state to recognize Israel — but now it's the Republicans who are steadfast in support of the Jewish state. Says Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the House Republican Conference: 'I never thought I'd live to see the day that an American administration would denounce the Jewish state of Israel for rebuilding Jerusalem.'"

Editorial: "Many Israelis find Mr. Obama's willingness to challenge Israel unsettling. We find it refreshing that he has forced public debate on issues that must be debated publicly for a peace deal to happen. He must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully."

Comments: Finally, something I don't disagree with! But where is the pressure on the Arabs? The demonization of Israel by the Palestinian Authority is a daily occurrence, as are abuses such as the naming of schools and plazas for prominent terrorists, for starters. Jim Kouri, Examiner.com (March 28): "What is particularly telling is that this is a president who has bowed to a Saudi king, who has repeatedly held his hand out to Iran only to have his face slapped in response and who has regularly suffered the slings and arrows of insults from Russia, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, to name a few. For whom does he reserve his anger, toughness and vehemence? For Israel, the only reliable ally we have in the Middle East."

Making the rounds in Israel is a spoof of a news release: "Passover Hagaddah conclusion, 'Next Year in Jerusalem' deemed 'unhelpful' by Obama administration." The fact that this wasn't instantly recognized as satire is telling. Also making the rounds here is A Letter to the World from Jerusalem, 1969, by Eliezer ben Yisrael (Stanley Goldfoot): "Your hearts bled when Berlin came under siege. You rushed your airlift 'to save the gallant Berliners'. But you did not send one ounce of food when Jews starved in besieged Jerusalem [During the War of Independence]. You thundered against the wall which the East Germans ran through the middle of the German capital — but not one peep out of you about that other wall, the one that tore through the heart of Jerusalem [Jordanian occupation of east Jerusalem, 1948-1967]. And when that same thing happened 20 years later, and the Arabs unleashed a savage, unprovoked bombardment of the Holy City again, did any of you do anything? [Six Day War] The only time you came to life was when the city was at last reunited [by the Israelis]. Then you wrung your hands and spoke loftily of 'justice' and need for the 'Christian' quality of turning the other cheek."

Goldfoot concluded that that gentiles preferred that Jerusalem be destroyed rather than be governed by Jews. I'm not sure he is incorrect, based on the West's indifference to valid Jewish rights to Jerusalem and Israel. If Jerusalem is destroyed, there's a good chance that Western civilization could also fall.

This quote from Amerisrael.typepad.com (March 26) tells it like it is: "Just as appeasement policies in the late 1930s resulted in Europe being overrun and occupied by the Nazis, so the current policies of the Obama administration pressuring Israel to engage in appeasement has the effect of emboldening not only Israel's enemies, but the enemies of the free-world as well. It's the 1930s all over again. This time Israel is 'England' with rockets raining down upon them, while an 'appeasement minded' world looks on." The Obama administration surely doesn't want the Islamists to triumph, which is his rationale for American troops fighting in Afghanistan. It's time for Americans to inform the administration that Israel is on America's side and that emasculating Israel gives the Islamists exactly the wrong impression, and "permission" to continue the current atrocities.

Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me."

To Go To Top

Posted by Elias Bejjani, March 31, 2010.

My letter that was sent yesterday to the Honorable, Mr. Lawrence Cannon, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding a desperate call to save the life of a Lebanese Citizen from being beheaded in Saudi Arabia

In my capacity as an active Canadian Lebanese human rights activist, journalist, political analyst and commentator, and founder of the Canadian Lebanese Human Rights Federation (CLHRF), I desperately and passionately call on you to personally intervene with the Saudi Arabian authorities in a bid to save Ali Hussain Sabat, a Lebanese national, who according to Associated French Press (AFP) has been sentenced death by beheading this week. With this plea, I join Amnesty International and millions of Canadians and people worldwide who call for respect for human rights, justice and mercy.

From Beirut, his lawyer, May el-Khansa, told AFP on Wednesday 31/03/10, that last night she received news through unofficial channels that Ali Sabat would be beheaded within 48 hours. She stated that his family and she have been contacting Lebanese officials, including President Michel Suleiman and Lebanon's ambassador to Saudi Arabia to appeal his case.

Ali Hussain Sabat, a Lebanese psychic who made predictions on a satellite TV channel from his home in Beirut, was arrested by religious police in the Saudi city of Medina during a pilgrimage there in May 2008 and then sentenced to death on November 9 of the same year.

Mr. Sabat, is 46-years-old, and at the time of his questionable and unlawful arrest was in Saudi Arabia to perform the minor Islamic pilgrimage known as Omra. He started out in the city of Mecca and then traveled to Medina to pray at the "Mosque of the Prophet". The case against him was brought after he gave advice and made predictions on Lebanese television.

Mr.Sabat appears to have been convicted solely for the peaceful exercise of his rightful freedom of expression.

We strongly believe that it is high time that our Canadian government which has extremely good relations with the Saudi ruling family intervenes on the basis of protecting human rights to save the Life of Mr. Sabat, and at the same time encourages the Saudi Arabian government to join the international trend towards a worldwide moratorium on executions.

It is worth mentioning that Saudi Arabia has no clear legal definition on the charge of witchcraft and judges are given discretionary power in determining what constitutes a crime and what sentence to impose. In November 2007, Mustafa Ibrahim, an Egyptian working as a pharmacist in Saudi Arabia, was beheaded after he was found guilty of sorcery. Sabat is one of scores of people arrested every year in Saudi Arabia for practicing sorcery, witchcraft, black magic and fortune-telling.

These practices are considered to be a form of polytheism by the government of this deeply religious Muslim country. Meanwhile, Mr. Sabat did not break any Saudi law and the alleged crime was not committed on the Saudi soil, but in Lebanon and not via a Saudi media facility.

In Lebanon, psychics, fortune-tellers and astrologers are permitted to operate freely. Many have regular television and radio shows and some cafes even hire them to attract more customers. Every December 31, they jostle for air time to give their predictions for the New Year. Meanwhile, Mr. Sabat did not infringe on any Lebanese law

Saudi judges have harshly punished confessed 'witches' for what at worst appears to be fraud, but may well be harmless acts. Saudi judges should not have the power to end lives of persons at all, let alone those who have not physically harmed others.

We are fully convinced that Mr. Ali Saba is not a criminal, and that he did not commit any criminal act. It is very important that Canada, the well known champion in global human rights advocacy, steps in and saves the life of this one person.

Mr. Cannon, saving an innocent person from such a harsh and unlawful death is noble and humane act, especially that within few days we are going celebrate the death and the resurrection of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Matthew 5: 7& 9: "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God".

Elias Bejjani is a Canadian-Lebanese Human Rights activist, journalist and political commentator. Email him at phoenicia@hotmail.com and visit his websites:
http://www.10452lccc.com & http://www.clhrf.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerry Golden, March 31, 2010.

When a Head of State visits the US he or she is greeted with honor, some-times even military honors. For example when one of the Arab Head's of State comes to the White House they are even met at the Air-Port by high ranking dignitaries even the President Himself. If it happens to be the King of Saudi Arabia, Obama would even bow to him showing his submission to Islam. If it was a third world leader from Africa he would get a full military honor reception. And when they came to the White House they would come through the front door and be brought to the Oval Office. All of this of course would be covered by the media with full press coverage.

BUT, when the Jewish Leader of the best and only real friend America has in the Middle East "Israel" comes to visit the White House he is brought in under the cover of night and not to the front door, he is brought to a side door and is met with an unknown person and quickly ushered into a side room where he waits for the grand appearance of the President, who takes his time and then arrives with arrogance and distain showing what has been reported as a vindictive attitude towards the Jewish Leader of Israel, Netanyahu.

It would seem to me that the cover has been completely blown off any pretence of Obama's position on Israel and the Arab's who call themselves "Palestinians". He no longer negotiates with Israel today he Demands that Israel submit to the Islamic Arabs and give up their land in order to appease the Islamic Arabs. In short what he is demanding is the final and total destruction of the Jewish State of Israel.

Obama knows the truth of who and what he is will catch up with him, his intent to destroy the United States from within and his hatred for the USA and even its flag is becoming well known. But God has something to say to Mr. Obama; Zech.12

[1] The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

[2] Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.

[3] And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

[4] In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.

[5] And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the LORD of hosts their God.

[6] In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.

Obama has given Netanyahu until Saturday to give his answer on his demands, that causes me too wonder how long God will give Mr. Obama?

Unlike times past when the Israeli people wanted their government to give in to the wishes of the United States at least to some degree, this time Netanyahu has the backing of 90% if not more of the Israeli public even the left wing Parties. The latest Israeli polls show only 9% have a favorable opinion of Obama; and believe he favors the "Palestinians" and the Islamic Arab World. In fact, I personally don't know one Israeli who doesn't believe that Obama is a Moslem.

As Believers in Yeshua (Jesus the Holy One of Israel) you have God's Word about the days we now find ourselves. There should be no doubt in your mind of the need to prepare the best you possibly can for your family and loved ones. This coming year will reveal many things making it all very clear and no longer necessary for these kind of warnings. But for now you are forewarned not by this Messenger but by God's Word.

It must be very clear to everyone by now that God has the attention of the entire world on this small piece of real estate "Israel" just as it is written, for it is here in this land God gave you His Word and it is here in this land "Israel" he will bring all things together for His prophetic Word to come to pass.

The world is beginning to shake and it will be brought to total chaos in a very short time period, millions of souls will be weighted in the balance as they make their decision who they will follow and there are only two choices.

Many who say they love Israel will turn against her and be deceived by the evil one of this world. But for those who know and love the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, will bless Israel and the Jewish people. God will make the final Aliyah of His Jewish people

Isa.[11] And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

[12] And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, for our son Joel and all the IDF soldiers. Pray for this Ministry and your part in it.

Contact Jerry Golden at wakeupamericans@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 31, 2010.



Ethiopian Jewish immigrants taste first matzoh (AP/Michal Fattal)

As Jews celebrate Passover for liberating the Hebrew captives in ancient Egypt, many of them think of Jonathan Pollard, held captive for life by the U.S. for what usually is considered a minor crime. His health is deteriorating. Word is, that the U.S. would consider releasing him if the government of Israel requested. Several high U.S. officials have stated that Pollard was imprisoned too long. Nevertheless, Israel does not ask the U.S. to release him.

The Israeli Government gets thousands of letters petitioning it to ask, but it ignores them except for pretending concern for Pollard. She accuses the government of neglecting all Israeli prisoners held abroad, and pretending concern for them.

Jonathan Pollard's wife, Esther, considers the ailing prisoner's hanging on to life practically a miracle.

She was asked for an interview about this, but referred reporters to these statements that she made three years ago (IMRA, 3/30).

President Shimon Peres and some other high officials betrayed Pollard to the U.S.. They now may have an interest in covering up by keeping Pollard out of the news and not letting him testify against them. Too bad people were not born with stronger consciences! It also is too bad that Israeli politicians were not more religiously observant, because Judaism places high value on redemption of captives.

Mrs. Pollard did not elaborate on how Israel neglects the other prisoners and what it might do to free them. Their circumstances are different.


Three experts analyzed all the suicide bombings in Russia, among other places, to determine whether their motive was Islamist. They found it is not.

The final messages left by Chechen suicide bombers, of whom 40% are female, refer to nationalistic concerns such as "occupation." That is one clue.

Another clue is the timing of the attacks. Terrorist attacks mounted when Russian offensives were brutal. Terrorist attacks waned in the three-year period when Russia rebuilt the local economy and gave the people more autonomy. Then Russia demanded that the Chechen governor they appointed wipe out the remaining and scattered militants, who largely were ineffective. The governor did so in as brutal a manner as had Russia, itself. Suspects [not convicts] were imprisoned, their houses were burned down, and claims came out of torture and coerced testimony. The governor used force to silence protest.

In order the better to justify its counter-measures, the government of Russia labels the rebels as Islamist and largely foreigners, the three experts contend. (The three are Robert A. Paper, Lindsay O'Rourke, and Jenna McDermit, NY Times, 3/31, A23.)

This account differs from the prior one.

[Editor's Note: Chechenya is predominently and strongly Sunni Muslim. In "The Religious Roots of Conflict," Professor David Damrel says: "Invariably at the heart of this Chechen resistance have been the remarkably resilient, furtive, and politically active Islamic mystical brotherhoods of the Caucasus." Isn't that what global Islamism (also known as radical Islam, Islamism or just plain Islam) is all about — the advancement of Koranic law, using whatever local provocation works?]


Ofer Military Prison. See the stones (AP/ Majdi Mohammed)

Senior Fatah member Abbas Zaki and other Fatah members stormed the Bitunia Israeli checkpoint near Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem on Sunday. Leaders of the rock-throwers were three Fatah Central Committee members. A dozen were arrested.

In protest, about 200 Fatah leaders and Israeli leftists incited themselves to riot and rioted today near the Ofer military prison near Jerusalem. They threw stones at Israeli police, wounding two. Police dispersed the rioters with tear gas, injuring three.

Zaki is the most senior Fatah official arrested in many years. Fatah responded to escalate "resistance," i.e. gratuitous violence including terrorism.

"Abbas recently has told English-speaking media he is against violence, but in Arabic media he has encouraged 'resistance...'" (IMRA, 3/31 http://www.imra.org.il/).

How to make sense of this? Secretary of State Clinton assesses Abbas as a man of peace apparently based on his statements in English. She conveniently ignores his bellicose statements in Arabic and the fact that it is his Arabic statements that coincide with his Fatah Party's and his people's action, violent action. This is an old State Department tactic and an old Arab ruse. Either the State Dept. fails to see through the ruse, which would testify to its incompetence, or it relays the Arab deception to the American people, which would testify to its dishonesty.

The challenge to readers who disapprove of Israel in general is to acknowledge that the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) is deceptive and violent and the State Dept. condones it. Some of the violence is directed against civilians. Attack after attack, but no condemnation by those readers. Those readers are righteous against Israel, but have no indignation against wanton or illegal Arab violence. Having a double standard, as they do, is akin to having no ethical standard.

For Israeli leftists to help terrorists attack their own troops indicates a psychological disturbance leading to betrayal and an undemocratic confession that they resort to violence because they cannot persuade the people of Israel to endorse their view.

Some readers might to justify Arab violence. The challenge to them is to acknowledge that the P.A. and PLO and Fatah leaders signed agreements not to be violent but to negotiate. The Arabs broke and break those agreements. No excuse for that.

Some readers try to ignore Arab refusal to negotiate by claiming contrary to the evidence that Israel refuses to negotiate. The readers rationalize that Israel should not be building more houses in certain areas (and ignore the massive illegal building by Arabs on land they confiscate). Does it ever occur to those readers that if the Arabs had negotiated final peace any time during the past 42 years, there probably would have been much less Israeli construction? Kicking oneself is an appropriate description of the Arab tactics of refusing to negotiate and then complaining about the consequences. The Arabs create their own problems.


Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman accuses Abbas of having asked Israel to overthrow Hamas during the Gaza war, but then accusing Israel of war crimes there. Lieberman's account was confirmed to reporters by a high official of the Olmert regime, in power at the time.

Lieberman's point is that Abbas' betrayal proves him not to be a partner of Israel. Abbas denies the accusation, calling it defamation intended to obstruct the "peace process." Hamas endorses the accusation, having made it, in roundabout language, itself, some time ago.

It had accused him of failing to condemn the Israeli anti-terrorist campaign in Gaza and of failing immediately to endorse the UN Goldstone Report also accusing Israel (and Hamas) of having committed war crimes. It finds this proof of Abbas' unfitness to represent his population (Arutz-7, 3/2) .

Abbas seems to trap himself as he shifts opportunistically. His dilemma is how to oppose Hamas while advocating unity with it. When one tries to walk in opposite directions at once, ones legs ache.

It seems that the only reason he retains credibility with the State Dept. is that it is desperate to use whatever Arab leader is available to wrest concessions out of Israel.


Hamas gunmen entered the Gaza City Bank of Palestine and at gunpoint forced employees to open the vault. After seizing about $400,000 dollars worth of cash, the gunmen left a receipt.

The background to this story is that to comply with international regulations against money-laundering, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) froze the funds in that bank. The funds included deposits by a hospital.

When Hamas overthrew P.A. rule in Gaza, it replaced the judges with compliant ones who unfroze those funds.

The deeper background to this story is that Israel transfers excise tax payments to the P.A., and the P.A. pays the civil servants of Gaza (Arutz-7, 3/31)

Thus Israel and other governments that help finance the P.A., including the U.S. government, indirectly help finance the Hamas regime. Abbas thus is in collusion with Hamas, his rival.

The sources of those funds may contend that they are keeping civilian services functioning. Who are the employees? Many are troops or after hours terrorists. The teachers indoctrinate in terrorism. Is education in Arab terrorism worth funds that might build a viable Haiti economy?

ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT AND HOW TO DEBATE IT: PART 1 Two readers' comments about the Arab-Israel conflict reflect broader problems about how to understand and debate it.

Most readers find my articles useful explanation. They are content to have their outlook broadened. They often do not comment. At the other end are those whose outlook is impervious to information that doesn't suit it, and who enjoy Israel-bashing. They manufacture their own facts and accusations. In between are folks who have some interest in the issues but who have not given it much study and have accepted what they are told before reading these articles. Some of them wish to discuss puzzling aspects of the issues.

Here is the first comment: Israel was created by ethnic cleansing.

The first comment was attached to an article that proved a pattern of bias by the Financial Times
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2010m3d30-Financial-Times-of-London- calls-Israel-a-rogue-state and linked it to a Times official covering up his failure as an administrator involving the Arabs. The comment therefore was irrelevant.

Three aspects of the comment are disturbing. One is its irrelevancy. Having nothing to dispute in the article, the reader resorted to a general condemnation of Israel. It is not a mature way. It sounds spiteful, like the husband who denounces his mother-in-law, to spite his wife, who had found something to criticize in her mother-in-law.

Such readers condemn article after article, about which they have no refutation. When will it dawn on them that there is so much to be said for the other side that they are unaware of? Should they remain so sure of their position, when there are so many contradictory facts they cannot gainsay? It is not debating to respond to a detailed analysis by making an irrelevant and unsupported accusation.

The remark also demonstrates a second, disturbing inability by some people to absorb new information challenging their pre-conceptions and to integrate them into a balanced perspective. Multiply this problem with that one article by hundreds of articles, and one wonders how much of their original perspective would be left intact if they could absorb new information.

So what do they do with the new information? Apparently as a defense mechanism, they ignore it. They deny themselves the benefit of full information. They are left with a simplistic notion.

The third disturbing aspect of the comment is its falsity. When Israel declared independence, Arabs from within and from without were attempting ethnic cleansing and threatened genocide, but no ethnic cleansing had been committed yet. Nor did the reader give any examples, just an assertion.

It is true that before the war, the 20,000-strong Arab ruling class, many of them absentee landlords based in Arab states, fled. They fled not only from the prospect of war that their own people were starting, but they also fled from extensive terrorism against them by their own people. You see, the first thing that violent, totalitarian movements do is intimidate their own people into submission.

After Israel was created, Jordanian and Egyptian invaders executed or dispossessed whichever Israelis they captured. As the Arabs in Israel lost their attempt to take control over various cities, Arabs fled en masse. A small number were removed from sensitive strategic hilltop and border positions that they threatened.

It would be unjust to thrust into Israel the descendants of those who fled. Those descendants have been indoctrinated in hatred and violence. They undoubtedly would attempt the genocide that their grandparents had attempted and that the ones left behind or who since then got in seem to be gearing up for, by incitement and violence.

I lived through those times, read the newspaper accounts of it, and studied it more, afterward. The documentation includes admissions by Arabs then and now. Particularly useful are Myths and Facts from Near East Reports and Samuel Katz' Battleground: Fact & Fantasy in Palestine, 1973.


Here is the second comment: I have no problem with Israel, but it is about time a U.S. President stood up to Israelis who have the arrogance to set terms for peace for their country and even for negotiations.

What would be arrogant? It would be arrogant to set terms for another country in negotiations and as a condition for starting them. Israel has no pre-conditions. What is the commenter thinking? His comment is about an article which, together with its links to other, supportive articles, enumerates U.S. and Arab attempts to set terms for peace for a country not their own. Therefore the arrogance is not Israel's. Nor is Israel arrogant for declining to be dictated to.

Rather than standing up to Israel in the American interest, the President tries to bully Israel in the interest of anti-American Arab jihadists. Fortunately for Americans, to some extent Israel stood up to him.

The last agency entitled to conceit is the State Dept. The State Dept. is an Achilles heel of America, along with the CIA. The State Dept. let the 9/11 terrorists into the country. It helped bring on the Iraq war by encouraging Saddam to attack Kuwait. It failed to predict and then deal with major changes such as illicit development of nuclear weapons in Iran and N. Korea. It has sponsored terrorists in Afghanistan and later in the Palestinian Authority, in the misguided notion that they would not "blowback." It encourages Palestinian Arab intransigence by making one-sided demands of Israel for an already failed land-for-peace policy. Other demands have been for Israel to retract defensive measures, after which, when Israeli acquiesced, terrorists were able to strike and kill. The one-sided U.S. demands on negotiations have been followed immediately by Palestinian Authority refusal to negotiate unless those demands are met. Thus, President Obama's arrogance and partiality delay negotiations.

The reader's comment reflects an apparent inability to grasp the thrust of an article and to make a cogent argument against it. Perhaps the reader got carried along by the Administration claims of having been insulted, claims that much of the media parroted.

Informed, specific, logical, pertinent, and not nasty personal challenges to the articles would be welcome.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, March 31, 2010.

The New York Times has now crossed the line from being a grossly slanted newspaper in its Middle East coverage to being one so partisan, blinkered, and defensive as to lose its value altogether. I do not write this lightly and have no wish to exaggerate. But the newspaper's editorial of March 26 is so mendacious, so made up to suit the political purposes of the Obama administration without any reference to the facts that it is a work of politically tailored fiction.

Basically, the themes or omissions are as follows:

--Israeli policy is the result of extreme right-wing politicians.

--Most Israelis support Obama rather than their own government.

--The U.S.-Israel agreement of last October never existed.

--The Palestinians don't exist and one doesn't need to mention their actions or the administration's total catering to them.

--Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has done something so awful that it proves he doesn't want peace. What did he do? Precisely what he told the U.S. government he was going to do five months ago and which it then called a major step toward peace!

The Administration's and Times' goal is to portray the issue as not being one of Obama versus Israel but rather Obama plus the Israeli majority against a relatively small number of right-wing extremists who have hijacked the country.

If only such tactics were used against America's enemies.

Unfortunately, it is necessary to discuss this editorial in detail. It begins:

"After taking office last year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel privately told many Americans and Europeans that he was committed to and capable of peacemaking, despite the hard-line positions that he had used to get elected for a second time. Trust me, he told them. We were skeptical when we first heard that, and we're even more skeptical now."

Netanyahu not only said this privately but also publicly, as is clear in the official Israeli government peace plan about which the Times has never even informed its readers. It offers a two-state solution and lists Israel's needs: end of conflict, resettlement of Palestinian refugees in a Palestinian state, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, demilitarization. So Netanyhu hasn't "grudgingly" accepted this solution, he's offered it himself.

Of course, Israel has things it wants in exchange but neither the U.S. government nor the Times discusses these matters. As a result, the apparent position of the U.S. government is that Israel will have to accept a Palestinian state without conditions. No wonder Israel's public is suspicious.

Moreover, this government is not merely one of Netanyahu but also of Labour Party leader Ehud Barak and former Labour leader Shimon Peres who was also in Kadima, and is now president, as a supporter of its program. It is not a "right-wing" government but a national unity coalition including the biggest party of the left and of the right.

The story being set up portrays the problem as being Netanyahu neither committed nor capable of making peace. The Times is clearly never skeptical about the Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership. But what has Netanyahu done to demonstrate this claim? There was no problem before the recent crisis, set off by the announcement that a plan to build apartments in Jerusalem — still years off — had passed one more of seven stages toward approval.

It bears repeating over and over again that last October, Netanyahu reached a deal with the Obama Administration: No construction on the West Bank; construction to continue in Jerusalem. In addition, the White House agreed that this ban would be limited to nine months. The obvious concept was that the U.S. government was wagering that it could produce either enough progress on talks, benefits to Israel, or both that it could persuade Israel's government to extend that freeze. Netanyahu never broke that agreement, which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hailed as a great step toward peace.

So has Netanyahu done something horrible or is this a largely fabricated crisis?

"All this week, the Obama administration had hoped Mr. Netanyahu would give it something to work with, a way to resolve the poisonous contretemps over Jerusalem and to finally restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. It would have been a relief if they had succeeded. Serious negotiations on a two-state solution are in all their interests. And the challenges the United States and Israel face — especially Iran's nuclear program — are too great for the leaders not to have a close working relationship."

The Times was not dismayed by the fact that the PA refused to negotiate between January 2009 and February 2010, and then only indirectly agreed to do so. Unless I missed it, there hasn't been one word of editorial criticism of the PA at all. In fact, the newspaper said not a single word regarding the PA's sabotage of Obama's call for negotiations last September.

What the second paragraph disguises is that the Obama Administration made a major new demand on Israel's government: all construction to stop permanently after it had already accepted a compromise on the issue. This is not just "something to work with," but rather a maximalist demand for something no Israeli government has ever given.

"But after a cabinet meeting on Friday, Mr. Netanyahu and his right-wing government still insisted that they would not change their policy of building homes in the city, including East Jerusalem, which Palestinians hope to make the capital of an independent state."

Again, there is no mention of the PA giving anything on any subject; this issue doesn't even exist according to the Times. As noted above this is not merely a "right-wing government," but the story is being set up to suggest that Obama is the true leader of Israel.

"President Obama made pursuing a peace deal a priority and has been understandably furious at Israel's response. He correctly sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a factor in wider regional instability."

In January, Obama announced that he felt it unlikely he could make serious progress on peace. Presumably this was a result of PA behavior as well. From that moment, it was clear that a peace deal was no longer a priority; again a point the Times does not even suggested.

"Mr. Netanyahu's government provoked the controversy two weeks ago when it disclosed plans for 1,600 new housing units in an ultra-orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem just as Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. was on a fence-mending visit and Israeli-Palestinian "proximity talks" were to begin."

It is interesting to note that the reason there were proximity talks only was that while Netanyahu called for direct negotiations (as had Obama last September), the PA rejected them. Moreover, Israelis know that it was not "Netanyahu's government" but a low-level commission that announced the plans without clearing it with the prime minister. Even Israeli journalists who are strongly opposed to Netanyahu have made this point, which the Times ignores.

"Last year, Mr. Netanyahu rejected Mr. Obama's call for a freeze on all settlement building. On Tuesday — just before Mr. Obama hosted Mr. Netanyahu at the White House — Israeli officials revealed plans to build 20 units in the Shepherd Hotel compound of East Jerusalem."

While it is technically true that Netanyahu did not accept the freeze on all building-"settlement building" makes it sound (and no doubt many Times' readers falsely believe-that new settlements are being constructed-it is also true that the Obama Administration accepted a compromise.

Let me give an analogy. You demand that I give you $100,000 to buy a property. I counter-offer $75,000. You accept it and publicly brag about what a great deal it is. A few months later you angrily announce that I rejected your proposal and it is now proven that I didn't want to buy the house.

That is very close to the current situation.

"Palestinians are justifiably worried that these projects nibble away at the land available for their future state. The disputes with Israel have made Mr. Obama look weak and have given Palestinians and Arab leaders an excuse to walk away from the proximity talks (in which Mr. Obama's Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, would shuttle between Jerusalem and Ramallah) that Washington nurtured."

Well, why should they worry if they can negotiate a deal? And if they are worried shouldn't this make them more eager to reach a deal before more is "nibbled" away. Remember, by the way, we are talking about a piece of land approximately four city blocks over the pre-1967 border in an uninhabited place.

But the best point of the paragraph is that the Times is shocked! Shocked! That this makes Obama look weak! How many things has Obama done in the Middle East to look weak? (To save space and because I know you can give a list, I won't spend a page outlining them.) Yet on what single occasion has the Times been upset about this?

"Mr. Obama was right to demand that Mr. Netanyahu repair the damage. Details of their deliberately low-key White House meeting (no photos, no press, not even a joint statement afterward) have not been revealed. We hope Israel is being pressed to at least temporarily halt building in East Jerusalem as a sign of good faith. Jerusalem's future must be decided in negotiations."

Yes on the last sentence. But the announcement that in a few years Israel might start building some apartment buildings doesn't decide Jerusalem's future. If the PA offers a good deal then why should the presence of plans to build apartments — or even existing apartments — stop it? But that's what this is mostly about: Trying to reach a deal which does not require the PA to give up anything it doesn't want to, which means giving up nothing at all

"The administration should also insist that proximity talks, once begun, grapple immediately with core issues like borders and security, not incidentals. And it must ensure that the talks evolve quickly to direct negotiations — the only realistic format for an enduring agreement."

This, too, is profoundly dishonest. Direct talks have been going along for most of the last 18 years. They were derailed first by the PA walk-out (over a war in Gaza begun by Hamas) and then by the Obama Administration's own demand — beyond the PA's demands — for the construction freeze.

There is no hint that the lack of talks doesn't rest on Israel, with the possible exception of the last week though even this could have been finessed. Suppose Obama had said to Netanyahu: Please announce that there are no imminent plans to build these apartments and denounce the announcement as unauthorized by you. Things could have been worked out and indirect talks restarted.

Now the Administration's explosion has put them off for months at least. After all, why should the PA, smiling as the U.S. government bashes Israel, relieve the pressure on Israel's government? Especially since they don't want to negotiate any way and they know the U.S. government won't make them do so?

"Many Israelis find Mr. Obama's willingness to challenge Israel unsettling. We find it refreshing that he has forced public debate on issues that must be debated publicly for a peace deal to happen. He must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully."

Notice how the one sentence comes in at the end about how Obama must press Palestinians and Arabs. But there is not a single specific, nor any discussion of how the lack of balance in itself is damaging. Yet even the premise is flatly wrong: must there be a public debate now on a permanent end for Israel construction as the main and sole condition for reaching a peace deal? I could name a dozen other issues, including the PA's failure to comply with its commitments on a daily basis.


"Questions from Israeli hard-liners and others about his commitment to Israel's security are misplaced. The question is whether Mr. Netanyahu is able or willing to lead his country to a peace deal. He grudgingly endorsed the two-state solution. Does he intend to get there?"

Notice that the editorial does not speak of questions from Israelis but from "hard-liners and others," implying — while still covering itself in language — that only some kind of extremist might question Obama's commitment. Again, a long list of reasons for questioning that commitment could be made.

But again what has happened to make the question Netanyahu's ability or willingness to make a peace deal. Here are the total charges against him: The announcement of building a set of apartments, for which he apologized, and another regarding 20 additional apartments.

It's not as if he and his colleagues daily broadcast incitement to murder people on the other side through schools, sermons, and speeches. It's not as if they refused to negotiate at all month after month. It's not as if they released or did not incarcerate extremists who murdered civilians on the other side. (Actually they did release prisoners who murdered civilians but they were Palestinian prisoners who murdered Israelis.) It's not as if they don't even control half the territory for which they purport to bargain.

Those are all characteristics of the PA, things the Times does not even mention. And if the administration or the Times wanted to take offense at anti-peace actions they could mention that at the time of Biden's visit the PA dedicated a major square to a terrorist who murdered a score of Israeli civilians and Gail Rubin, a U.S. citizen and niece of then Senator Abraham Ribicoff. Not only did the Administration not protest this action but Clinton mistakenly attributed it to Hamas in her AIPAC speech.

Consequently, this editorial is not merely slanted; it is so profoundly dishonest, distorting both the Palestinian and the Obama Administration role, as to be suitable to that published in a state-controlled newspaper in a dictatorship.

Once — and perhaps again in the not-distant future — the U.S.-Israel link was called a "special relationship" because it was so close. Now it is still distinctive in a special way: Israel is the only country in the world — a list that includes none of those countries sponsoring anti-American terror or trying to destroy U.S. interests — that this administration, perhaps only temporarily, wants to intimidate and defeat.

But is this all about Israel or is it about the desperation to defend an administration which has failed so badly and acted so erratically in foreign policy?

By so misrepresenting the facts and situation, some media can go on defending Obama's policies and actions. But that's no way to defend America and its interests, quite the contrary.

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

This is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, March 31, 2010.

The Phyllis Chesler Organization Israel's Rebirth 'A Boring Story' To U.S. Jews An Interview with American Zionist Hero Dr. David Gutmann

In 1947-1948 I lived in Boro Park where, against parental and rabbinic advice, I joined a Zionist group. By 1950 I was packing machine-gun parts for Israel in a home not far from the Young Israel. But what I did as a child does not compare to what my friend and colleague David Gutmann did for love of Zion at that very time on the dangerous open seas.

Dr. Gutmann was a 21-year-old Jewish-American volunteer sailor for Aliyah Bet, the name given to "illegal" Jewish immigration into British-controlled Palestine (1934-1948). Hundreds of boats tried to run the British blockade. One was stranded on the Danube and its passengers later sent back to Vienna and executed, another boat was bombed by the Soviets.

Once Hitler was defeated, British disdain for Jews quickly became visible. Some Jews made it, many (more than 1,600) drowned, and most were captured and imprisoned on Cyprus. The British actually sent some boats right back to Europe, to Germany, as was the case with the SS Exodus. This public relations fiasco backfired; my friend Ruth Gruber's on-board photo of the SS Exodus made the cover of Life magazine.

The Jewish Press recently met with Dr. Gutmann. Although he is no longer young, he is a large and sturdy man, a solid presence. He is also very witty. His generation of heroes is mainly gone but he is still here.

The Jewish Press: How did you become a sailor?

Dr. Gutmann: I served in the U.S. Merchant Marine during World War II.

The ship manifests list you as serving on two ships, the Paducah-Geulah and the Ben Hecht. Were they the same kind of boat? Who served with you?

I served first on the Hecht, after that on the Geulah. I was an engine room oiler on the Hecht, a second engineer on the Geulah. The Hecht was purchased and run by the Irgun. She was a German-built twin-diesel luxury yacht originally named Abril (April). She sailed for the U.S. Navy on anti-sub patrol during World War II.

After the Brits left Palestine, the Hecht/Abril became part of the Israeli navy and was used to launch frogmen against Egyptian naval craft off Gaza. Last I heard, she was running tourists between Naples and Capri.

The Hecht/Abril's crew was a mix of Jews and non-Jews, kids and veteran seamen, crazies and idealists . We ended up in Acco (Acre).

The Geulah was purchased and run by the Haganah. A twin-screw steamship built around 1905, she served during World War II as, I believe, a gunnery-training vessel on the Great Lakes. She was scrapped in Naples in '49. The Geulah's crew was more decorous than the Hecht's complement. A mix of veteran sailors (Jews and non-Jews), and Zionistic college kids.

We also had a few exiled Spanish loyalist sailors and our second mate was Don Miguel Boeza, who had been high admiral of the loyalist navy. Our captain was Rudy Patzert, an old commie married to a Jew. He wrote a book about the voyage — Running the Palestine Blockade. Our Haganah commander was Moka Limon, a legendary hero of Aliyah Bet who later became admiral of Israel's navy. He was the guy who pulled off the legendary "boats of Bordeaux" operation. We all ended up in the Cyprus prison camps.

Would you consider writing a memoir?

Depends on the kind of memoir. I wouldn't want to deal with the whole operation — too much I don't know. Perhaps something more personal and anecdotal. I've got a few good stories.

Are Jews still eager to hear your stories?

Despite the fact that I'm willing to speak without honoraria, even during 2008 — Israel's 60th anniversary year — the response from heads of congregations was at best tepid. And since then, perhaps one in three rabbis show interest. Some who showed initial interest never followed up. Nowadays, they might suggest 10-minute gigs at men's club breakfast meetings.

Why the disinterest?

Rahm Emanuel reportedly said, "I've had it with Israel." I think a lot of Jews now feel that way. They're tired of worrying about Israel, unendingly, from crisis to crisis . The Palestinians are the heroes of our victim-adoring age; accordingly, many liberal Jews have come to believe the Palestinian "Nakba" revision, the lies that turned a miracle into another Jewish blood libel.

But whatever their politics, modern Jews have little sense of history. I speak about the '48 war, and the lies about it that are now believed by too many Jews. For most U.S. Jews, the '48 war is an old and perhaps boring story. They saw "Exodus"; they don't want to see it again. They don't realize that history is the present, and that [post-Zionist] revisionist history is central to the attack on contemporary Israel. It is one of the manifold attempts to bring it down, first morally and then physically.

Did you stay in touch with others from Aliyah Bet?

Yes. I was one of the founders of the now defunct American Veterans of Israel organization. I held office and attended their reunions in Israel and the States. But that was then. Most of us are dead now, and I haven't had a drink with an old shipmate in years.

Bob Levitan, our captain, participated indirectly in the breakout from Acco. With his Leica, he took ID-type photos of all the Irgun and Lehi prisoners, and these were later used in the phony ID cards issued to them prior to their escape.

What similarities, if any, do you see between American Jewish attitudes in the 1930s and 1940s and today?

In the 1930s and '40s, American Jews sanctified FDR. Now they are equally loyal to Obama. Despite their growing awareness of the Holocaust, during World War II American Jews for the most part stayed silent — very few mass protests and very little covert action. "FDR will save the Jews."

My fear is that too many contemporary Jews are preparing to repeat this pattern. They will not embarrass the great and good Obama with their selfish concerns for what they view as a victimizing country — Israel — that no longer deserves their loyalty. Too many will follow Obama's lead and stay silent while Israel is weakened or even destroyed.

Dr. 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 http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/

This article appeared March 29, 2010 in The Jewish Press
http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/720/ israel-rebirth-a-boring-story-to-us-jews

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 30, 2010.


How would you react to readers who ask you questions but do not answer your questions? Who ignore your explanations and call that debate? Who condemn your ethnic origin and call you the hater? Who call for mass-murder?

Certain readers write numerous successive comments ostensibly about the same article, but actually changing the subject to broader aspects of jihad not in the article. Comments not pertinent are not appropriate. Noting that the General Assembly currently claims Israel is occupying Arab land, and failing to note my explanation for dissent, readers ask me why I am lying. What a question! If a stranger has a different opinion from the better known one, must he be lying? These people actually are astonished to find that this journal has standards of civility and engagement they do not meet.

Why respect the UN, most of whose members are dictatorships and countries beholden to them? Such members protect genocide and oppression.

One reader accused Israel, in retaining the Territories, of not respecting the rights of other countries. Name another country that the Territories legally belonged to? There are none. The Territories belonged to the Mandate, of which Israel is chief heir. For that reason, the Territories are not occupied. Also for that reason, they cannot be said legitimately to belong to the Arabs.

When Israel was reconstituted, with UN approval, the Arabs attacked it and have been attacking it ever since. Readers touting respect for the territorial integrity of other countries should apply that principle to Israel. Ethics should be consistent.

Readers contend that international law forbids a country to keep land belonging to another country. Sounds good, but is superficial. If that notion were applied, almost every country would have to cede land. Chaos would result.

These readers misunderstand. The principle applies to acquiring land by aggression, not by self-defense and for national security. The actual principle is fair and discourages aggression. The readers' view encourages aggression — aggressors would not risk territory and could invade again.

The last relevant, binding UN ruling was Security Council Resolution 242. It asserted that in a final peace settlement, Israel would withdraw from acquired territories, meaning only some, meaning they may retain the rest. Neither complete withdrawal nor land-swapping was required. Let us not mistake contemporary, ideology-driven, passions of the day for international law. International lawyers who strive to change international law by reinterpretation and by ignoring the bases for the law are not honest about it.

The biased interpretation would produce dire consequences. The first result of full Israeli withdrawal would be insecure borders for Israel. Therefore, the second result would be renewed Arab aggression. You see, the Fatah-PLO covenants call for war until Israel as a whole is conquered. Insecure borders for Israel would facilitate Israel's conquest. War is the consequence. Massive deaths would ensue. Want that on your conscience?

It would be wiser to remove binding power, i.e. the power to write international law, from the Security Council until it can become a positive force not manipulated by the prejudices of the day.


Service for the dead (A.P./Alexander Zelianichenko)

Muslim women committed two suicide bombings in Russian subways. They probably were from the Caucasus region that includes Chechnya, Dagestan, and the Ingush. Is that terrorism part of international jihad?

Russian security policy killed an Arab al-Qaeda agent in Dagestan. Security services believe that al-Qaeda furnishes Caucasus separatists with money. It is getting difficult to consider the rebellion nationalist and not also jihadist.

Russia has been too harsh on the Caucasus region. The terrorists, however, discredit their own cause. We New Yorkers, having experienced similar, wanton attacks, sympathize with the subway commuters of Moscow (Wall St. Journal, 3/30, Ed.).

Yes, in September, 2001, I used to walk home in tears, for behind me I could see the smoke from what terrorists had done to my city and my country. More recently, I was visiting Israeli areas where Hamas was landing rockets that set off combat in Gaza. Such barbarism is a phenomenon not just of the Dark Ages but also of totalitarian movements during our lifetimes centuries later.

Is the terrorism in Russia jihad? Scholarship on this contemporary issue depends on intelligence from a society that remains largely closed and a terrain and population that does not welcome inquiry. The answer is unclear. Here is what I surmise.

The Chechens and others wanted independence. Russia cracked down on them brutally. The insurgents fought from within their chief city, until the Russian Army pounded it down. Very little international outrage greeted those Russian war crimes and those insurgents for bringing the war into their own civilians' areas.

When normal seekers of independence were put down, jihadists, who are more extreme, probably gained influence in the cause. That is true of many revolutions. The Muslim population probably became more radical, as Russia became harsher. In any case, al-Qaeda and other sponsors of international terrorism seeking to impose Islam on the world, would willingly help Muslims gain independence. Then the Radical Muslims would seek to take over the new republic of Muslims.


Private Israeli agencies have furnished the staff of the Middle East Subcommittee of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee with documentation of Palestinian Authority incitement against Israel.

The documentation includes: (1) Official maps not identifying Israel but including its mass within the Palestinian Authority (P.A.); (2) Two reports of incitement against Israel by the P.A. and UNRWA; (3) P.A. Ministry of Tourism pamphlet, underwritten by the U.S., that rewrites history in order to fabricate Arab claims and dilute Jewish claims to the area; and (4) A briefing paper on the dire implications of U.S. assistance to P.A. military forces run by a regime that believes in bigotry, war, and terrorism (Israel Resources News Agency, 3/28). http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/bin/articles.cgi

Now Congress cannot say it did not know what the U.S. is doing. The great problems in modern Western governments are to bend facts into an ideology rather than to develop an ideology from facts, and to fail to anticipate the consequences of proposals. This is true of foreign and domestic policy.

Sponsors suppose that their policies would fulfill their goals of peace and prosperity (or self-interest). They fail to play scenarios that would show them how other people probably would react not as hoped. The State Dept. is so imbued with appeasing Muslims that it fails to realize it assists enemies of America when it assists the P.A..

The framework for these comments is international jihad. Jihad targets the U.S. and Israel, among others. Therefore the U.S. and Israel have common interests in defense. The State Dept. weakens the common defense. But some readers, finding here criticism of the U.S. policy, reach the specious assumption that the criticism is anti-American in behalf of Israel. They conflate U.S. policy with U.S. national interest. Unfortunately, State Dept. policy turns out to benefit America's enemies. Those readers credit the State Dept. with a wisdom it lacks.

Nathaniel Philbrick's history book, Mayflower, recounts Miles Standish making war on an Indian tribe, because one of its leaders personally insulted him. Policy should not be made because of perceived slights, religious prejudice or attempts to appease the insatiable.


Iranians in Indonesia want asylum in Australia (AP/Trisnadi)

World Vision Australia financing has made possible a stadium in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) named after a prominent terrorist.

Here is how the charity describes itself: "World Vision seeks to make known God's offer of renewal and reconciliation through Jesus Christ, and to encourage people to respond. This part of our holistic approach is just as important as the physical, social, economic and political aspects of our work."

"World Vision is Australia's largest charitable group. More Australians entrust more money to World Vision than any other charity in the country. World Vision helps over 20 million people every year, thanks to the support of more than 400,000 Australians."

"Across the globe, each World Vision office is autonomous, but offices work together under the auspices of World Vision International."

The stadium is named the Shahid Abu Jihad Youth Center. "Shahid" is Arabic for martyr. "Abu" was a popular PLO nom-de-guerre. Abu Jihad was Arafat's deputy military commander. He ran many terrorist operations that murdered many civilians.

The P.A. daily explains, "David Vivian, program coordinator for World Vision Australia, together with Nujud Sa'da, the [World Vision] organization's program director, along with Ashraf Iseed, Fanda Yunan, Sonya Ghanem, from World Vision institute, held a meeting with Marwan Al-Washahi, executive director of the Shahid (Martyr) Salah Khalaf Center and Sa'id Hamdan, head of the Jenin Youth and Sport Administration, to discuss cooperation and future programs of the Youth and Sport Administration and the World Vision organization, and to discuss procedures for operating the World Vision-Palestine stadium in Qabatiya, which has been built at the Shahid (Martyr) Abu Jihad Youth Center..." (Palestinian Media Watch, 3/29)

World Vision Australia probably does not intend to foster jihad. It probably is naïve about other cultures and allows too much local chapter autonomy. It needs experts at its headquarters to advise it about just such problems as described here.


Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority (P.A), has promoted a convicted Arab terrorist to the rank of major-general. A prisoner of Israel since 2006, Mahmoud Damra commanded Arafat's personal guard and terrorist unit, Force 17. As such, he planned many terrorist attacks. Among his victims were three Americans (Itamar Marcus and Barbara Cook, Palestinian Media Watch, 3/28).

Every week adds to the overwhelming evidence that Abbas favors terrorism and war. Nevertheless, U.S. Secretary of State calls him a man of peace and the U.S. Treasury spends at least $900 million on the P.A..

Some readers disapprove of U.S. aid to Israel, as do I. But they fail to disapprove of the equal or greater U.S. aid to Arab terrorists and armies that have engaged in aggression. That seems inconsistent.


Grozny, Chechnya on International Women's Day (AP/Musa Sadulayev)

Deeper into today's issue of the Wall St. Journal was a more profound explanation about the terrorists in Russia, as I requested. It confirmed what I had deduced.

Muslim rebellion, though largely repressed in Chechnya, has grown. Violence has increased. Russia had finally won in Chechnya, where the toll was tens of thousands. [Compare that with the 1,300 in Gaza.] The tough Chechnyan satrap there, given Russian funds, restored order and rebuilt the economy. He fosters a more benign version of Islam than the one motivating jihadists.

The surviving jihadists fled deeper into the mountains or into Dagestan or Ingushetia. The remaining fighters seek an Islamic caliphate, not national rule, in the North Caucasus. The people of Dagestan do not support independence, but the Radical Muslim terrorists don't ask them, they keep committing terrorism.

The rebels strike in individual cells and do not try to hold territory, rather than, as formerly, striking in military units and seeking to hold territory. They recruit women for suicide bombing. Some of the women had lost relatives in the strife.

There is one view that the subway attacks, said to be in revenge for the slaying of some leading terrorists, exploited the slaying to lend color to justification for their attacks (Marc Champion and Ira Iosebashvili, 3/30, A12).


The Financial Times of London is the British equivalent of the U.S.-based Wall Street Journal, focused primarily on business and financial news. Readers might expect that such a media outlet would present the Arab-Israeli conflict in a dispassionate manner. But this is hardly the case. The newspaper's editorials are relentless in their lopsided criticism of Israel, portraying Israel as a rogue state and urging the United States to withdraw its support from the Jewish state. This striking bias was quantified in a report by British media watchdog group Just Journalism.

In an eight day period from Nov. 18 through Nov. 26, three separate editorials called on the Obama administration to end its policy of defending Israel from UN resolutions condemning the Jewish state. Op-Eds during the four month period of November 2009 through February 2010 repeatedly urged the U.S. to pressure Israel into accepting severe Arab demands that it retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, which would leave Israel's main population center within a vulnerable 8-10 mile wide strip of land and forfeit any claim to a unified Jerusalem. The Financial Times' displeasure at Israel's refusal to consent to such demands is expressed in vindictive and accusatory opinion pieces.

A Dec. 15, 2009 piece by former European Union Commissioner Chris Patten expressed support for EU President Carl Bildt's pro-Palestinian policy — with the caveat that it did not go far enough. Patten wrote that "seemingly on instructions from Israel's foreign ministry Italy, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Romania fought to dilute the original text." Evidently, there was no possibility, in Patten's view, that these nations simply held a view of events and issues related to Israel less negative than his. Rather they must be receiving "instructions." Nor was any proof provided for his insinuating a nefarious Jewish influence on European governments.

For Patten, the antagonism toward Israel is personal. As the official responsible for handing over billions of Euros to the notoriously corrupt Palestinian Authority, the lack of positive results clearly upsets him. Rather than admit this failure is due to endemic corruption among Palestinian officials, Patten instead shifts blame onto Israel, claiming: "The money I spent in Palestine.... has drained away into the blood-soaked sand." He further alleges the EU has become the "paymaster for [Israeli] intransigence and disproportionate force."

In fact, it is not Israel but the Palestinian leadership that is intransigent, refusing to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, even as it continues to receive an enormous EU subsidy. As for the money draining away, it was none other than External Affairs Commissioner Patten who blocked an investigation on the misuse of EU funds by the Palestinian Authority, stymieing any attempt to trace whether funds ended up in terrorist hands.

Patten's discussion of the status of Jerusalem is similarly unbalanced. He dismisses Israel's annexation of Jerusalem, while decreeing the eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem a capital of the future Palestinian state. In contrast, acceptance of Israel's sovereignty over the western neighborhoods of Jerusalem is ambiguously framed, despite continuous Jewish control since 1948. The New Republic observed that the Financial Times cannot even get itself to identify that the Israeli government is located in Jerusalem, opting instead to incorrectly call it the"government in Tel Aviv."

Following a recognized pattern of employing Jewish defamers of Israel to buttress and justify anti-Israel bias, the Financial Times solicited columns from two Jewish writers notorious for their extreme anti-Israel rhetoric. On Dec. 8, an Op-Ed by self-proclaimed anti-Zionist Tony Judt urged American Jews to cut off their charitable support to Israel. Judt devoted much of his column to a specious book by French History professor Shlomo Sand contending that there is no such thing as a Jewish nation and that Jews have no historical ties to Israel.

On Feb. 24, 2010, another Jewish critic of Israel, the Arab-funded Henry Siegman, presented his familiar spiel about Israel allegedly becoming an apartheid state in need of harsh punitive measures.

Discussion about the role of Palestinians in thwarting peace finds no place in the pages of the Financial Times. For example, there is nothing about the pervasive official and societal anti-Jewish incitement by Palestinians, or about the problem presented by Palestinian teachers, writers and leaders who educate their youth to value "martyrs" and "martyrdom" — issues critical to the understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead, columns assault the legitimacy of the Jewish state and express resentment of Israel's resolute action against those who threaten it.

On Feb. 26, just two days after Siegman labeled Israel a racist state, an incensed James MacKintosh described the assassination of Hamas weapons trafficker, Mahmoud Mabouh, allegedly by Israel. MacKintosh wrote: If "Israel is at war with the Palestinians or at least the militant groups, in which case fair enough to kill them — but they should not be labeled as terrorists, if it is a war, or treated as terrorists by other states; or it isn't a war, in which case extra-judicial killing is just another word for state sponsored murder, reducing Israel to the level of the terrorists."

Untangling Mr. MacKintosh's Catch-22 logic, a terrorist ceases to be a terrorist when pursued or killed by Israel. If Israel pursues a terrorist in the context of a war, the terrorist becomes a legitimate combatant. But if Israel pursues a terrorist outside the context of a war, the terrorist becomes a victim of Israel's state-sponsored "murder." One can only wonder how this logic might be applied to the British and American campaign against Osama Bin Laden and his al-Quaida compatriots.

International Affairs Editor David Gardner epitomizes the Financial Times' resentment of Israel in an editorial piece on Feb. 26, 2010 where he found fault with Israel for defending itself against terrorists. Reflecting upon the assassination of a Hamas operative in Dubai allegedly by the Mossad, Gardner blamed the Mossad for the rise of Hezbollah and criticized Israel for killing Munich Olympics massacre mastermind Hassan Salameh — who had become a conduit for British intelligence.

Describing the failed attempt to assassinate Hamas leader, Khaled Mishal in Jordan an affront to Jordanian King Hussein, Gardner quotes expatriate Israeli revisionist historian Avi Shlaim that it was as if the Israelis "had spit in his [Hussein's] face." Gardner was unconcerned that by extending his protection to the Hamas leader, King Hussein was, in effect, spitting in the face of Israeli victims of terrorism.

Gardner accuses Israel of behaving like a rogue state. This sentiment resonates with longstanding British foreign policy traceable back to before the Jewish state was declared, when the British navy thwarted attempts by underground Jewish organizations to bring "illegal" Jewish refugees fleeing Europe to Palestine. The Financial Times editorials reflect an entrenched resentment toward Israel that recalls the events surrounding Israel's founding with feelings of anger and humiliation. The circumstances have changed substantially over the years, but the Financial Times' editorials offer proof of the durability of this harsh sentiment. (Steven Stotsky, CAMERA, 3/29).

The rogue appears to be at the Times. He cites Avi Shlaim, who happens to be not only anti-Zionist but also a Communist, not reliable. I sat behind Henry Siegman, when we were delegates in the American Jewish Congress and he was a high official. He replied to my suggestion that he respond to something unfair to Israel that we should leave it to "quiet diplomacy." Later I realized that "quiet diplomacy" was his excuse for inaction. He became part of the problem.

Britain called Jewish immigration illegal, but it was the British ban on Jewish immigration that violated the Palestine Mandate. Generations of law-abiding Jews have accepted the British, self-serving terminology. They do not understand that governments may act illegally and people defying government may act legally. The trick is to know which is which.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, March 30, 2010.

As March bids farewell amid troubled sigh, a longing for April — of years gone by...

What a March it has been — for those caring about Israel, that it is.

True to its honest agenda, put on the table well before the November 2008 election, when a then Senator Obama claimed that Israel would be crazy (his very own words — repeated after the election as well) to reject the alleged Saudi Peace Plan, Team Obama is now pressuring Israel to forsake the promise of the final draft of UNSC Resolution 242. Along with # 338, the former was the supposed basis for peace-making between Arab and Jew in a post-'67 War world.

The nasty fight the current American leader and the other honchos in his Gang of Three have going on with Israel right now is all about whether Israel gets the secure and defensible real political borders as an end result of true peace-making with Arabs, or is forced back to the suicidal, 1949 U.N.-imposed armistice lines which made it less in width than the distance most people have to travel just to go to work — a constant temptation to those who would see it destroyed. President George W. Bush is said to have commented, after a helicopter ride taken while governor, that Texas has driveways longer than that.


And that's what the current mess is all about — not Jews building more homes in their capital, Jerusalem, a place Jews have been doing such building for over three thousand years, at a time when the Gang of Three's ancestors were worshiping idols, practicing fertility cults, likely engaging in human sacrifice, and other such goodies.

So, to better understand all of these troubling goings on, let's take a stroll back in time — to an April of yesteryear.

Israel's Prime Minister, a now comatose Ariel Sharon, made a very hard decision in April 2004.

After decades of supporting the construction of Israeli towns in disputed territories Israel wound up with as a result of having to fight a defensive war for its life in June 1967, the Old Warrior decided that the costs outweighed the gains of keeping Jews in Gaza.

While it is true that while their numbers fluctuated, Jews had lived in Gaza for millennia; that since the days of the Pharaohs, Gaza had been used as an invasion route into Israel proper by those aiming to destroy or subjugate it; that Gaza had become a hotbed for terrorists aiming to destroy Israel; that Jewish communities set up in Gaza were not on Arab-owned land; etc. and so forth; it is also true that many — if not most — Israelis were looking for a way out of Gaza if the proper conditions presented themselves.

As it is once again now, Israel had long been under pressure to take some steps to revive the all-but-dead, so-called roadmap for peace with Arabs. When it comes to making such real, tangible gestures, notice that it is always only Jews who are expected to make them...

Lacking any Anwar Sadat or King Hussein-type to deal with among Palestinian Arabs (i.e. Arab leaders willing to allow for a viable Israel still existing on the morrow after an actual peace treaty is signed), Arik decided to make a unilateral move to break the stalemate while also supposedly enhancing Israel's overall security position. The latter assertion was hotly debated given certain "facts of life."

In April 2004, Sharon thus came up with his unilateral Gaza withdrawal plan. In addition to the removal of Gaza's 8,000 Jews, some "settlements" in Samaria, the northern "West Bank," were also placed on the eviction notice. When Arabs move in from elsewhere, their dwelling places are called towns. When Jews do this, their new homes are called settlements.

As just one of many examples regarding how this works, when Sheikh Izzedin al-Qassam (think Qassam rockets) — the patron saint of Hamas — moved into the Mandate of Palestine from his birth place in Latakia, Syria in the early 20th century, along with scores of thousands of other Syrian Arabs, they set up such "towns." When thousands of Syrian Jews did likewise, they set up "settlements."

Get the picture?

As we see again today, the world had been clamoring for such Israeli moves for decades to advance the "peace" process.

Those who conquered territories sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles away from home in the name of their own nations' security somehow couldn't figure out the life-threatening problems Israel was constantly faced with due to the absurd armistice lines imposed upon it in 1949. As is well known by now, those lines made Israel a mere 9-15 miles wide at its strategic waist, where most of the nation's population and industry is located.

One needn't be Napoleon to figure out what this all meant to a nation grossly out-manned and out-gunned, surrounded by enemies sworn to its demise. And, as would become the norm, the U.N. had stepped in only after the Jews turned the tide of the Arab invasion in 1948 to snuff out both their own lives and the life of their sole, miniscule, reborn nation.

Israel was never meant to be a 9-mile wide sub-rump state...but that's how it was left when the lines were drawn in '49 marking the point where the Jews finally turned back the invasion of a half dozen Arab armies supplied to the teeth with weaponry left over by the Allies from World War II and led, in Transjordan, by British officers. The UN stepped in to limit Arab losses, not to prevent their blatant aggression. This behavior would be repeated in subsequent decades as well.

The Gang of Three is now attempting to force Israel back to those '49 lines — and to accept being flooded by millions of real and fudged Arab refugees as well — the other part of that Saudi plan which America's current leader repeatedly states Israel would be crazy not to accept. For this — not mere apartments — President Obama left Prime Minister Netanyahu waiting in the White House "to think about " while abruptly leaving him to join his family for dinner. No pictures or other nice formalities either.

Bibi should have walked out the door and gone home. I have a few other "shouldas" that I'll keep to myself right now...but you may use your imagination if you'd like...

Perhaps it is time for Israel to cut itself off from American aid if it means it must agree to simply become a puppet on a string, ignoring its own minimal security needs. I'd at least like to see how the American people and Congress would react if Team Obama made it come to this...

Back to Sharon and the Gaza withdrawal...

The area under discussion is tiny to begin with.

When Egypt held Gaza and Jordan (name changed from Transjordan after it came to hold both banks of the River after illegally seizing Judea and Samaria in '48) held the West Bank for almost two decades, no one called for the creation of an additional Arab State...their second, not first, one in "Palestine." But, after 1967, the world has demanded the latter of the Jews, expecting them to bare the necks of their children to those who deliberately target them to bring this about.

Despite all of this, Sharon sought to break the log jam with his April 2004 unilateral withdrawal proposals.

Arabs, of course, viewed this simply as yet another victory in their openly-admitted, destruction-in-phases plans for the Jews...Terrorism works, Lebanon again, and so forth.

That's the message, unfortunately, Arabs got from Sharon's gesture. And rather than feeling compelled to come up with some real conciliatory moves of their own, Arabs simply made more demands for additional, unilateral Israeli concessions. Israel was soon hit with some 10,000 rockets and mortars from Gaza over the subsequent years. That's the lesson Israel learned regarding such unilateral withdrawals to the old armistice lines. The very lesson Team Obama wants it to simply ignore.

Nothing has changed in 2010.

Today, Mahmoud Abbas and his "moderate" latter-day Arafatians claim that Israel — and Israel alone — will have to do all of the giving while Arabs just do all of the taking in any "negotiations." And they are fully supported in this, both in word and deed, by America's new leader.

No screaming on the phone for concessions from Arabs by Hillary, and so forth, either. That's reserved for the Jews.

Since the failure of their "one fell swoop" plan for Israel's destruction in June 1967, Arabs adopted a strategy to politically force a return to the indefensible armistice lines of 1949.

Given new technologies, massive buildups of Arab armed forces, the continuing Arab birth rate, and the like, the return of Israel to its pre-'67 lines, coupled with a demand for a "return" of millions of Arabs to the Jews' sub-rump state, would be the beginning of the end. Arabs openly acknowledged all of this. Even their "moderates" openly-called Oslo and other so-called plans for "peace" (like Obama's favorite Saudi one today) merely a Trojan Horse, designed to bring about Arafat's so-called "Peace of the Quraysh," the temporary hudna (cease fire) designed to buy time while weakening the Jews further for the same final blow Muhammad dealt to his pagan enemies almost fourteen centuries earlier.

That Arabs have responded this way was no shock...but they have also been supported in this behavior by most of the world and the current American Administration as well.

But, then there was the magic of April...2004, that is.

There had been talk before Sharon came up with his withdrawal plan that he would get some backing from Washington on some other key matters.

There is an indisputable set of facts regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict...something Team Obama obviously does not understand.

If there will ever be peace between Arab and Jew, Arabs will have to give up their eternal plans for Israel's destruction. They have not...Had they done this, Arabs could have had their second state in the borders of the original April 25, 1920 borders of Palestine decades ago.

Fair and just plans were presented and rejected over the decades by the Arabs themselves — certainly far more than Arabs had ever offered to any of their own national competitors. Just ask some seventy million Kurds and Imazighen (Berbers) about this subject — and there are millions of others victimized by Arabs in the region as well.

The reality is that — despite all of the attempted whitewashing from abroad (especially courtesy of the American State Department and Team Obama) — the alleged "good cops" of Fatah's Abbas and the bad cops of Hamas still want that additional Arab state (# 22) to exist in place of, not along side of, the Jewish one.

Enter George W. Bush...

Standing near Sharon, in a news conference being watched on television all over the world, an American President — the first since Truman in 1948 — finally took a political stance that might yet some day lead to peace.

Dubya stated, before millions watching him, the two necessary, key ingredients:

Israel should not be expected to return to the indefensible armistice lines of 1949 (and he called them just that, not "borders"), and...

Real and fudged Arab refugees would have to go to the proposed new Arab state, not overwhelm the Jews in Israel proper. Recall that half of Israel's Jews are from refugee families from Arab/Muslim lands.

The Saudi plan that Obama is nastily trying to force down Israel's throat negates both of these crucial ingredients.

Einstein was not needed to figure this recipe out.

But Arabs had long been given reason, via the world's actions, to hope that Israel would yet become an updated Czechoslovakia with the West Bank as its Sudetenland. All that was missing was a proper new Chamberlain and conditions allowing for another Munich sellout to achieve "peace."

Guess what, that other Chamberlain now sits in the White House.

President Bush's words, as simple as they were, are the magic ingredients necessary if there is ever to be peace between Arab and Jew in the Middle East.

Today, Team Obama pretends that the letters Bush gave Israel confirming the magic of April 2004 do not even exist.

Millions of Americans — Christians more than Jews (most of whom who'll vote for Team Obama yet again in 2012 anyway, despite all of this mess) — are outraged by what their elected officials are doing right now vis-a-vis Israel in its long quest for justice.

My timely, new book, The Quest For Justice In The Middle East — The Arab-Israeli Conflict In Greater Perspective made its debut in academia at Professors' Fouad Ajami and Bernard Lewis's (two of "the tops") ASMEA Conference last October. It gets into this struggle that both Jews and all of those other non-Arab peoples — scores of millions of them — are still engaged in trying to obtain a slice of that same justice pie for themselves in a region proclaimed by Arabs to be purely Arab patrimony. It dares go where few others dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict have ventured... Please see it at http://q4j-middle-east.com. If you like what you've read above, just imagine what my personalized copy of the book to you will have within its covers...

During Passover, and with Easter fast approaching, let all people of good will (moderate Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others as well) pray that Israel will have the strength to withstand the nastiness coming out of Washington these days.

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 Teresinka Pereira, March 30, 2010.

Wheat, dove and a kiss

are symbols of peace,

of renascence, life and light.

Everything will be peaceful

again, after the earthquakes,

the tsunamis, wars, invasions,

and hunger.

Some of us will survive,

others will stop suffering.

The word of peace is a rose

placed over the tomb of a child

who died this morning.

Earth will be reborn next spring

because while we wait for this

we may cultivate our hopes

and take care of the land.

Contact Teresinka Pereira at tpereira@buckeye-express.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, March 29, 2010.

Sh'lom Y'all,

People have often asked me why it is that the leaders of Israel have kowtowed to American demands that are transparently inoperable or counter to the real dynamics that could lead toward peace in the Arab-Israel conflict. Why, they ask, do Israeli leaders go along with the charade that "... just one more concession will surely bring the Arabs to the peace table."

My answer has always been "the USA is currently Israel's only 'foul-weather' friend," and thus Israel must do at least some things the way the USA wants her to. This friendship manifests itself to Israel's benefit in two major ways:

a.) The USA is the source of an enormous amount of financial aid which is used mostly to purchase USA weaponry which aids Israel to keep its technological and military edge (i.e., stay at least a few steps ahead of the USSR or Russian or Iranian or North Korean suppliers to the Arab world).

b.) The USA has been the political shield for Israel, deflecting the Arab political prowess achieved in the UN since 1974. More than half of all UN resolutions are anti-Israel. Those which are real threats to Israel (Title VII UNSC resolutions, as opposed to Title VI UNGA resolutions, which are merely fulminations) have always merited the US veto in the Security Council.

In the absence of our Commander-in-Chief's willingness to continue this role of "foul weather" friend, to supply to Israel the financial aid needed to purchase the arms needed to insure Israel's defensibility, and to continue to exercise the USA veto in the UN in order to shield Israel from existentially threatening Arab-sponsored UN resolutions, Israel is in deep doodoo.

Today we face just such a possibility.

Obama has vetoed the shipment of bunker-buster bombs to Israel (lest Israel strike Iran, and lest Iran think that Obama wishes Iran ill), and according to the article below, is poised to instruct our UN ambassador to abstain from the kind of UN vote that all American Presidents since Truman have vetoed.

Let's recall, as well, that the UN has just created a new committee dedicated to demonizing Israel: the UN committee charged with monitoring Israel's compliance with the Goldstone Report.

Now consider the combination: The new UN Goldstone committee declares that Israel is culpable of non-compliance, so the new UN resolution, soon to be sponsored by the Arab Bloc in conjunction with the former Soviet nations bloc in conjunction with the East Asian Muslim nations bloc in conjunction with the black African nations bloc, declares that enforcement is needed.

It is important to recall that UN General Assembly Resolutions (UNGARs) are Chapter VI resolutions and have no force of law. They are not enforceable and do not call upon member nations to send troops to the area in question in order to enforce the resolution. They are more like the general opinion of the General Assembly.

However, UN Security Council Resolutions (UNCRs) are Chapter VII resolutions and do have force of law. They are enforceable with UN troops, assembled from member nations, and deployed in the area where the enforcement is needed.

How many Arab nations, all members of the UN, would rush to have their own troops join the UN "peace-keeping force" stationed along the "green line" between the pre-1967 Israeli and Jordanian Jerusalems? Don't bother to count...it is a rhetorical question.

With no USA veto, Israel becomes the next area to which UN "peace keepers" are sent, to enforce the Goldstone report, to ensure Israel's compliance, and to de facto end Israel's control over the West Bank.

What would Israeli leaders do if faced with a hostile Arab-soldiered UN "peace-keeping force" prepared to enter Israel and ensconce itself such that it re-divides Jerusalem and stands between the Arab terrorists and the IDF in the West Bank?

What would the PA and the dozen or so other Arab terrorist groups operating in the West Bank seek to do with those Arab-Soldiered UN peace officers? Another rhetorical question.

Can Israel go to war against the UN? Israel is now faced with an existentially threatening connundrum.

Have a happy and Kosher Pessah.
David ML

PS. So, whether or not you voted for Obama (and 78% of Jews did), this is the time to speak out. Tell the President of your disappointment with his policy toward Israel.

It is one thing to disagree with one's ally on certain points of policy. It is quite another to treat that ally, and its head of state, as pariahs and to place that entire nation in an existentially perilous situation.

Doing so only emboldens Israel's enemies and makes the prospects for peace even more remote (*).

(*) PS is paraphrased from the last paragraphs of today's Ed Koch commentary of 3.29.2010, "Never Again Should We Be Silent," via email.

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

To Go To Top

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


The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has been firing hundreds of teachers and imams for belonging to Hamas, for suspected of membership in it or sympathy for it, for being the spouse of members, or for refusing to inform on members. The P.A. does not want its schools and mosques to be used to undermine Fatah rule. Military courts have sentenced many to prison.

Some Hamas prisoners whom Israel released to the P.A. are among those jailed by the P.A..

Purged people complain that they didn't have trials and that their firing was political. Hamas argues that the purge proves that Fatah does not want unity with Hamas. The victims have gotten no support from local civil rights organizations.

The P.A. also previews mosque sermons, to make sure they don't contain adverse comments (IMRA, 3/29).

If Fatah did not purge influential Hamas members, it would be purged, as it was in Gaza. This is not about politics as much as it is about survival. Hamas complaints about being purged are hypocritical. Each faction wants unity under its own control.

On the other hand, totalitarian movements purge people on mere suspicion or just for belonging to families having a relative who sympathizes with the opposition. In a free society, such cases would be taken up by civil rights organizations. Let us see whether all those organizations and governments that express sympathy for alleged Arab victims of Israel will express sympathy with Arabs who actually are victims, but of the P.A.. The expressed sympathy for Arabs usually is just a pretext for Israel-bashing. When I report what Arabs do to each other, as well as crimes by Arabs against innocent Jews, ostensible humanitarians fall silent.

Arafat used to hold trials. Those trials used to take a couple of minutes each. If people knew this, would they still advocate an independent, democratic, secular Arab state for the P.A.? It would not be democratic and secular and might not be independent, judging by Iranian influence over Fatah military men.

The purge is not anti-terrorist. It is for self-preservation. Fatah and the P.A. as a whole remain terrorist.


The Arab League meeting produced these resolutions on Israel: (1) No recognition of Israel as a Jewish state even if it cedes all the territory that the Arabs demand for the present and peace is made; (2) Eastern Jerusalem is an Arab city in which Israel may not build houses for non-Arabs; (3) Remove Muslim Arab violence against Israeli civilians from the category of terrorism and reclassify it as "resistance;" (4) Condemn the assassination of Mabhouh, the Hamas gun runner, killed in Dubai, the League supposes by Israel.

The League also refused to condemn the massive, Arab government assisted dispossession and genocide in Darfur. It demanded compensation to Libya for sanctions placed on it when Libyans bombed the Lockerbie flight (Arutz-7, 3/29).

Non-recognition means that the causes of war remain and can easily be rekindled. Recognition would not necessarily mean otherwise.

Eastern Jerusalem is not a city. It has had a Jewish majority for more than a hundred fifty years. Its Temple Mount was built by the Hebrews. Nobody has explained that if Jews are not allowed to build houses in areas claimed right now by the Palestinian Authority, why should Arabs be allowed to build houses in the Jewish state.

Redefining crimes as patriotism is an old ploy. When Europeans resisted real occupation by Germany and the USSR, they targeted enemy troops and administrators, not civilians. The assassination of terrorism Mabhouh may have been done via Iran, considering that several of the suspects fled to Iran and Syria and a couple were Palestinian Arabs. If by Israel, it would have been justified as self-defense against war by Hamas.

When the meeting was in session, it was reported that eight Arab governments did not send representatives.

In sum, the League supports aggression, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, deception, and genocide.

It does not seem a peace process.


President Obama's top adviser, David Axelrod denies that the Administration snubbed Israeli PM Netanyahu. He explained the absence of ceremony as a working meeting. Hence, they did not shake hands in public, there were no photographs of them together, and no press conference. During Netanyahu's prior visit, the White House brought him in by an SUV rather than a limousine and through a side entrance. Another spokesman admitted that the U.S. is pressuring Israel. But was vague about the means (Arutz-7, 3/29).

In addition, the Administration had threatened not to let Netanyahu meet with high officials.

Are such practices common in "working meetings?"


The U.S. is making other demands of Israel besides the four on Jerusalem. One of the others is that the indirect negotiations include the major issues. Israelis now realize that hints that the U.S. will bypass [or at least greatly influence] direct negotiations. The full effect of these demands indicates a reversal of U.S. policy.

Israeli officials contend that if the U.S. keeps breaking its promises to Israel, not only will Israelis lose faith in dealing with the U.S. executive branch, but so will other countries (IMRA, 3/29).

Israel prefers direct negotiations, which limits influence and pressure by mediators. Direct negotiations also give diplomats an opportunity to mingle and understand each other better and tone down the Arab hostility implied by refusal to talk with Israel.

Many journalists realized Obama's change in U.S. policy before Israeli officials did or acknowledged it.

Obama has changed U.S. policy against a number other U.S. allies or friendly states and in favor of U.S. enemies or unfriendly states. Think of the Czech Republic, Poland, Honduras, and Syria as examples.


Zelaya and Chavez (AP/Leila Saab)

How does the Obama administration treat Israel? Judge by the current U.S. relationship with Honduras. Its situation resembles Israel's in key ways.

Honduras is a small country, popularly ruled country, friendly to the U.S.. It lies in a hostile region turning increasingly undemocratic and anti-American. Nevertheless, the U.S. pressures it in behalf of enemies of the U.S.

Its former President Zelaya was an admirer and emulator of populist dictator Chavez, allied to Iran and who baits the U.S.. Zelaya was gathering up power in his own hands, used violence to intimidate opposition, and sought to retain office despite term limits.

Here is how journalist Mary Anastasia O'Grady assesses the relationship between Honduras and the Obama administration.

The Honduras Supreme Court ruled Zelaya's bid for continued incumbency unconstitutional. When the Honduras Congress considered impeaching him, the U.S. (which denies it) worked behind the scenes to thwart the Congress. U.S. support for him encouraged Zelaya to propose an unconstitutional referendum. Fearing he would use violence again, Congress deposed, detained, and deported him that day.

[The U.S. denounced Honduras, as did the Organization of American States, and withheld foreign aid to Honduras.] The U.S. tried to unseat the acting President and have Zelaya restored [calling his ouster a coup, even though he was a violent, anti-American demagogue intent on staging a coup and overthrowing the Constitution]. The U.S. also rescinded dozens of visas from Zelaya opponents in Honduras businesses and government.

Dan Restrop, senior director for Western Hemisphere affairs at the U.S. National Security Council, let slip the fact that the Administration considered this a matter of internal U.S. politics, because Democrats criticized the Administration for supporting an ally of Venezuela's dictator.

The U.S. remains committed to punishing Hondurans who disputed its interference in their internal affairs and to thrusting Zelaya back upon them without punishment for his crimes. U.S. policy on Honduras is not good for the U.S. national interest (Wall St. Journal, 3/29, A21).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, March 29, 2010.

This was written by Bojan Pancevski in Skopje. It appeared in Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ middle_east/article7078771.ece


SAUDI ARABIA is pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into Islamist groups in the Balkans, some of which spread hatred of the West and recruit fighters for jihad in Afghanistan.

According to officials in Macedonia, Islamic fundamentalism threatens to destabilise the Balkans. Strict Wahhabi and Salafi factions funded by Saudi organisations are clashing with traditionally moderate local Muslim communities.

Fundamentalists have financed the construction of scores of mosques and community centres as well as handing some followers up to £225 a month. They are expected not only to grow beards but also to persuade their wives to wear the niqab, or face veil, a custom virtually unknown in the liberal Islamic tradition of the Balkans.

Government sources in traditionally secular Macedonia (official title the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), said they were monitoring up to 50 Al-Qaeda volunteers recruited to fight in Afghanistan.

Classified documents seen by The Sunday Times reveal that Macedonian officials are also investigating a number of Islamic charities, some in Saudi Arabia, which are active throughout the Balkans and are suspected of spreading extremism and laundering money for terrorist organisations.

One of the groups under scrutiny is the International Islamic Relief Organisation from Saudi Arabia, which is on a United Nations blacklist of organisations backing terrorism. It did not respond to inquiries, but has previously denied involvement in terrorist activities, calling such claims "totally unfounded".

According to its website, it works in 32 countries to provide relief to the victims of natural disasters and to carry out humanitarian, health and educational projects.

"Hundreds of millions have been poured into Macedonia alone in the past decade and most of it comes from Saudi Arabia," said a government source. "The Saudis' main export seems to be ideology, not oil."

Sulejman Rexhepi, leader of the Islamic community in Macedonia, said a number of mosques had been forcibly taken over by radical groups. Four in central Skopje are no longer under the control of the official Islamic authorities. New imams claim they have been "spontaneously" installed by the "people".

"Their so-called Wahhabi teachings are completely alien to our traditions and to the essence of Islam, which is a tolerant and inclusive religion," said Rexhepi.

In some mosques believers are being told that Macedonia, which sent 200 soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan, has been tricked into supporting a crusade against Islam spearheaded by Britain and America. Radical clerics have shown footage from Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian territories to illustrate their claims that the West is waging war on Islam.

Rahman, a 35-year-old cab driver from Skopje, Macedonia's capital, said he had stopped going to his local mosque since it was taken over by extremists. "Following the Haiti earthquake the new imam said God would punish the West for their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with natural disasters," he said.

Bekir Halimi, an imam trained in Syria, runs Bamiresia, an Islamic charity that has been investigated for alleged terrorist links and money laundering. Police raided its offices but failed to find any evidence of terrorist links.

"We are fully entitled to receive funding from both governmental and non-governmental organisations from Saudi Arabia," said Halimi, who refuses to name the sources of his funding but rejects any suggestion of criminal activity.

Macedonia's law enforcement agencies warn that the European Union and America have failed to recognise the growing problem of Islamic extremism in the Balkans.

Baroness Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief, has declared stability in the region to be her top priority, but local politicians complain that the EU and Nato are reducing their presence in troublespots such as Bosnia and Kosovo.

Last month, Bosnian security forces raided a village strongly influenced by Salafi extremists and found a weapons cache.

In raids elsewhere rifles, bombs and rocket-propelled grenades have been uncovered.

The West has put considerable political and financial efforts into helping build democracy in Bosnia following its civil war in the 1990s. Saudi organisations have also asserted considerable influence, giving more than £450m to build more than 150 mosques and Islamic centres.

In Macedonia, Fatmir, a former disc jockey, explained how he became an adherent of Salafism. The father of two has grown a beard and instructed his wife to wear a niqab. He now makes his living by selling Islamist literature. "Ours is the Islam of the 21st century," he said.

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 Yaacov Levi, March 29, 2010.

Leo Rennert writes,

"Quite a contrast with Israel's treatment of Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is administered by Muslim Wafq, always open to Muslim worshippers, except when rioters use it as a base to pelt Jewish worshippers at Western Wall with stone barrages, and even then Muslim adults above the age of 50 can pray at Al-Aqsa.

"Meanwhile in Cairo, restored Maimonides Synagogue will be treated as a Judenrein antiquity.

"And how many American Rabbis will even lodge a protest?"

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


(IsraelNN.com) The Egyptian government has announced that it will not allow Jews to pray in Cairo's newly-restored Maimonides Synagogue, in retaliation for Israel's security response to Arab rioting on the Temple Mount.

"The Al-Aqsa Mosque is part of the heritage of the Palestinian Arabs and Israel is not entitled to block them from it," said Dr. Zahi Hawass, Secretary-General of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities.

A Qatari newspaper quoted Hawass in a telephone interview late last week as saying the Maimonides Synagogue would be treated an an Egyptian antiquity, not a Jewish house of worship.

Nor will he allow the Egyptian Jewish community to administer the site — a direct response, he said, to the "provocative practices carried out by the Jews in their celebration which was held in the temple." Hawass was referring to the wine served at the opening of the synagogue and the joyous dancing with which the celebration was carried out — both practices which he said were offensive to a billion Muslims.

The report "confirmed the temple will not be delivered to the Jewish community in Egypt in any way," with Hawass stressing that "he would not allow any Jew to pray in the temple, and would not allow any Israeli to pray in the temple."

Previous reports indicated that Egyptian authorities would allow Jews to pray in the synagogue.

Hawass also denied reports that American Jews had helped pay for the restoration of the synagogue, which he said had cost the Council several million dollars. However, he said, Egypt will continue to restore its ancient synagogues, with the next one to be in Alexandria, the Temple of the Prophet Daniel.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gennadiy Baruch Faybyshenko, March 29, 2010.

The Torah (The Five Books of Moses) dedicated one whole book, Leviticus (Heb. Vayikra) for Temple Worship and sacrifices. Are sacrifices very important to Jews or it is a historical event that happened some time ago since most humans were less civilized. And not for nothing does a Haftara (a portion of Tanah read every Saturday after Torah reading) during the reading of Parsha of Leviticus speaks of Isaiah 44 not to give great deal to sacrifices as not to mistake that they make us pure rather going through repentance. Do we need sacrifices on the Temple Mount today? Should we abstain ourselves not to cause furry in the Islamic world or it is part of commandments that we are obligated to perform. Let us see what does the Halacha (a Jewish legal ruling) speaks about that.

The modern day people or those specifically with the Galut (exile) mentality explain that the temple worship with sacrifices is something of the past. I am not speaking about people who are afraid that once Jews will bring sacrifices, the whole Gentile world in general and Muslim world in particular would rise out of furry but of the very logical ones. They explain that every human needs to believe in Higher Being, they need to know that there is justice in this world and that Someone, irrelevant who, is there Who guides that certain individual. However, in ancient times, it was very popular to bring sacrifices to the person's individual Master as appreciation or repentance. Thus when the Jews left Egypt, a place where sacrificing was so popular, Jews could not all of a sudden adopt to the idea of not bringing sacrifices. Jews needed a transition of some sort, otherwise they would be performing sacrifices privately. And it would be much better to bring sacrifices to one God rather than idols.

On the other hand, our sages tell us that since the Torah is eternal and the laws never change, especially since more than half of the 613 commandments that have to do with Temple Worship and sacrifices cannot just be an event of the past. Indeed before idol worship began, many people brought sacrifices such as Adam, Cane and Abel, Noah and etc. Indeed the Hebrew word for a sacrifice is Korban from the root KaRaV meaning bringing closer, bringing closer man to God.

What has happened in history was that men abused sacrifices. Sacrifice is a mean for a man to make repentance to God or showing gratitude. It happened that for every sin people brought sacrifices and their repentance stopped being so sincere. That is why God had to put an end to it and destroyed the temples because many people stopped being careful of following commandments since they knew there always was temple to make a repentance to. Accidents don't just happen, they're caused. To forget is not a human weakness, but a result of ones lack of interest. Only in the exile, did we learn how to make repentance without a temple. This was a Jewish way of maturity. Indeed we matured so far that so many Jews successfully repented without the temple, all they had to do was to bring their spiritual sacrifice of giving up their old lifestyles gentile living.

And only when we matured to a higher level and the sacrifices with the temple worship never parted from Jewish studies, God saw that we were worthy of redemption and once again He resurrected Israel and nineteen years later gave us the Temple Mount. We can fulfill all 613 commandments only when we will have our Temple on the Temple Mount and only when we will bring sacrifices once again. However there is a paradox, the Oral Torah says in order for us to understand the importance of sacrifices we must have temple services and in order for us to have temple services we need to have sacrifices.

There is an answer, and the answer lies in a Pascal Lamb sacrifice. To perform this special sacrifice we do not need a Temple. All we need is to ascend to a Temple Mount and slaughter a lamb there. Indeed we do not need to burn the lamb, only to be served during the Passover Seder. Indeed that is what is called Afikoman, what is now we substitute with Matzah. On June 7, 1967, Saturday, at 9:15 in the morning, we heard the words Har HaBait Shelanu (The Temple Mount is Ours), all we have to do is to sincerely realize the gift and the obligation that Our Creator is giving us. Once we will resume the Pascal sacrifice, it will enable us to understand the Temple Services with building the Temple on the Temple Mount and resurrecting the sacrifices that we were commanded to do all along. This is guaranteed to bring the Messiah speedily in our times, Amen vAmen.

Gennadiy Baruch Faybyshenko is National Director of Bnai Elim, a Jewish Activist Organization. Contact him at gennadiy1981@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, March 29, 2010.

(forwarded to the world by Steven Plaut)

Dear Mr. President,

My heartfelt sympathies to you and the Russian for the Moscow this week.

But we must really speak about how to deal with the atrocities and protests, including the attacks on Moscow, by these misunderstood Islamic activists. Mister President, I have a great deal of experience in dealing successfully with terrorism and this is why I wish to come to your assistance.

The first thing you must realize is that one can only make peace with one's enemies. With one's friends there is no need to make peace. There is no military solution to the problems of terrorism, and this is why you must seek a diplomatic solution. "No Justice, No Peace," as they say. You must invite the leaders of this Islamic activist organization to the Kremlin to meet with you and perhaps tour Red Square. You must learn to feel their pain and understand their needs. You must offer to turn a third of your territory over to them so that these stateless Moslems can have their own state. I have no doubt the Muslim world will applaud your efforts.

You must meet the demands of the Chechen protesters in full. In addition, you must offer them Internet web services and five-star tourist hotels in exchange for their promising to abandon violence. After all, that is how we turned Yasser Arafat into a peace partner! You see, military force serves no role any more. It is passé. It is archaic. Today, economic interests dominate the world and the Islamist activists of the earth will surely make peace in exchange for some profits from participating in global trade.

The attacks on the Moscow metro came because you have been insufficiently sensitive in understanding the needs of Chechen Moslems. You took their fundamentalist rhetoric at face value, whereas we in Israel know that all this rhetoric is empty and in fact these people simply want peace. Sure, Moslem fundamentalists praise Hitler and celebrate atrocities, but what is it that they really want? You must negotiate even while under armed attack; your conditioning negotiations on an end to violence is a no-win situation. It will simply extend the bloodshed!

You have been trying to rule over others and failed to be sensitive to The Other. You have illegal settlements that you have yet to remove from the Caucasus and the Black Sea area. You must put your own house in order, and eliminate inequality and injustice inside Russia, and then the terrorists will no longer target you.

The key is to build a New Middle Eurasia, one in which everyone is so busy with the important matter of development tourism and investments and hi-technology that they have no time to pursue violence. The era of war is finished.

Moreover, if you strike at the perpetrators of the Moscow unrest/protests and their supporters, you will simply extend and enlarge the cycle of violence. Your bombs will no doubt injure some innocent children and civilians alongside any terrorist activists you strike, and that will simply enrage the rest of the world and make the victims seek revenge. Your armed attacks against these militants and activists will cause them to hate the Russians and drive the separatists to embrace terrorism. Moreover, if you refuse to negotiate with the Chechen separatists, then their leader will be toppled and a really violent militant and fanatic will take his place. In that case, you will have lost the window of opportunity to make peace. Begin by declaring a unilateral ceasefire!

Mister President, blessed is the peacemaker. Remember Tolstoy. The entire world will support you and congratulate you if you respond to these horrific attacks by disarming Russia and opening dialogue with the terror activists. All we are saying is give peace a chance. Yitzhak Rabin would have approved. Yes, chaver, what you need is shalom, salaam, peace. You will be cheered and awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in recognition. Do not allow yourself to be drawn into the gutter of violence. Violence never achieves anything. History is no lesson. History is the dead past.

End the cycle of violence. Show restraint. Forgo the juvenile impulse to avenge.

Follow my example! Provide the Chechen bombers with anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, so that they can battle against the true radicals and fanatics. And they will do so with no ACLU or Supreme Court to restrain them.

Demonstrate your humanity by paying pensions to any widows and orphans of the terrorist who blew up the trains.

Mister President, the proof is in the pudding. My own peace policies have eliminated war and bloodshed and terror from the Middle East. We no longer have terrorists to deal with in the Levant, only peace partners. If you follow in my footsteps, you can achieve the same lofty goals.

Peacefully yours,
Shimon Peres, Peacemaker-at-Large

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollack (J4JP), March 29, 2010.

This was originally published in Maariv NRG — April 2, 2007 Re-released in English by J4JP March 29, 2010


J4JP 2010 Preface:

A number of Israeli news outlets, both Hebrew and English, recently attempted to interview Esther Pollard on the Eve of Passover 2010 (5770). She declined to interview. Here is an article she interviewed for 3 years ago. It is as accurate and true for today as it was when she did the interview 3 years ago. The only difference is the continued steady decline in Jonathan's health. "Every minute, every hour, every day that he survives," Esther points out, " is a complete miracle." How long can we go on relying on miracles?

Maariv NRG — April 2, 2007

The wife of captive Israeli agent, Jonathan Pollard, says that her husband's situation has deteriorated greatly, and that the US would release him but Israel has failed to make an official request.

Once again, on the eve of the holiday, Jonathan Pollard has turned to the State of Israel in an appeal to celebrate Jewish holiday of Freedom at home. According to those who are close to him, his health has taken a sharp turn for the worse, and he may even be in mortal danger. "For 21 years I have been slowly bleeding to death in full view of the nation," Pollard wrote in a letter. His wife, Esther points out that American officials now show a willingness to free him, but the State of Israel has yet to take any action. "This Passover Eve is a black one in my life," she said, while condemning the State of Israel of dealing equally as perfidiously with the other Israeli captives.

Pollard wrote in his letter: "My desperate situation — the result of betrayal and utter abandonment by the Government of Israel screams to the Heavens! And where is the Nation? I cry from the depths of my heart: Hoy Tzion! Hallo t'shalee eht shlom assiryach? (O Tzion! Won't you inquire after the welfare of your prisoners?) If Tzion will not inquire after the welfare of her prisoners, it is not the personal problem of the prisoners alone, but of all Tzion and those who dwell there."

Esther says the government of Israel is acting duplicitously and hypocritically, posturing as if it cares about Pollard for a domestic public audience, while doing absolutely nothing behind the scenes in Washington. In spite of thousands of letters recently sent by Israeli citizens to government ministers about Pollard, the political echelon continues to calculatedly duck the issue, she said.

The anguished wife also believes that the government is behaving similarly towards the other captive Israeli soldiers, showing concern publicly and claiming to be doing everything it can, while in effect doing little to actually secure their release.

"20 Years is more than enough!"

Last month various American officials were interviewed in the media and they indicated that the time has come to free Jonathan Pollard. Take for example, the former head of the CIA James Woolsey, or the US special envoy to the Middle East, Dennis Ross, who spoke in different forums, and both expressed the opinion that after such a long time in prison, it is time to free Jonathan Pollard.

Also, from within Bush's camp similar rumors abound, even if not officially, regarding Pollard, which make it clear that there is an American willingness to free Pollard, but clearly indicating, that it depends on an official request from Israel.

At the Caesarea Conference in Israel earlier this year, James Woolsey, the former Head of the CIA said, "Now that [Pollard] has served 20 years in prison, my opinion is that 20 years is more than enough, and that some consideration has to be given to the relationship between the US and Israel with regard to democratic issues."

This article can be read in Hebrew at
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ ART1/564/379.html#after_maavaron

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Udi and Mal Ohana, March 29, 2010.

Dear Friends,

Millions of Jews all over the world will re-tell the story this week of the ancient exodus from Egypt of the Jewish people, and will repeat the centuries-old pledge: Next Year in Jerusalem.

This is no empty platitude to be sacrificed at the altar of the catchy "Yes We Can" slogan.

Chag Sameach — and Shalom —

Mal & Udi

click here for the video on Jerusalem.

P.S. Our Jerusalem video, at the link above, is now downloading very fast.


YES WE CAN — hold on to Cuban territory (Guantanamo Bay), and refuse the demands of the Cuban administration to return the area — yet at the same time demand that Israel transfer Abu Dis (a neighborhood in East Jerusalem) to Palestinian Authority control BEFORE negotiations are even begun.

YES WE CAN — incarcerate Iraqi and Afghan POWs in inhuman conditions — stating that because Guantanamo is not on U.S. soil, the prisoners have no rights under the U.S. Constitution, and, at the same time, demand that Israel release Palestinian terrorists as a gesture of goodwill to Abu Mazen.

YES WE CAN — send U.S. military forces to fight against any regime deemed to endanger U.S. interests — Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. — yet, in the same breath, demand that Israel relinquish Judea and Samaria without receiving any security guarantees.

YES WE CAN — treat the Israeli Prime Minister like the chieftain of an Indian reservation who has come to visit the White House.

YES ... YOU ... CAN — because you are a Great Power, for which everything is permitted and justified.

But let me point out what YOU CAN'T...

NO YOU CAN'T — understand the Middle East mentality. You are unable to understand this different culture; you cannot comprehend that as long as the Palestinian Arabs believe that the State of Israel can be destroyed, there is no reason for them to enter true negotiations on coexistence and a two-state solution.

NO YOU CAN'T — influence the Palestinian Authority to change its Charter, calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.

NO YOU CAN'T — influence the Palestinian Arabs to recognize that the people of Israel have the inalienable right to live within the 1967 borders.

NO YOU CAN'T — influence the Palestinian Arabs to accept the fact that the Jews have a centuries-old attachment to the Land of Israel.

NO YOU CAN'T — prevent the Palestinian education system from teaching hatred and jihad — holy war — against Israel.

Only if — and when — you are able to change the NO YOU CAN'Ts into YES WE CANs, will I believe in the U.S. commitment to the continued existence of the State of Israel.

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, March 29, 2010.

Does the international community recognize America's claim to California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Texas; lands virtually taken from Mexico in the 1800s as part of an evolving policy of Manifest Destiny? Of course! Mexico surely does not have the clout afforded a preponderance of Middle East nations, thus the eastern sector of Jerusalem, Jordanian occupied land secured in 1967 by Israel, successfully fending off attempts to annihilate the Jewish State while most of the outer world watched, is considered by this so-called international community to be part of a future Palestinian State. Sucking up to hostile oil rich Arabs, their kindred spirit masses dancing in the street while mostly Saudi-rooted terrorists destroyed America's World Trade Center, damaged her Pentagon on 9/11/2001, is indeed trendy for pious hypocrites, ignoring claims by Israel, refusing to merely be consistent in their collective viewpoint. Furthermore, the 'infidel' would be banned from the historically rich eastern sector of Jerusalem if fundamentalist Arab's ruled, which they would if it was annexed to any Palestinian State; thus not only Jews but Christians as well as all other religious and non-religious folks would be deprived of landmarks, shrines, and wondrous sites now open to all under the aegis of tolerant Israel.

Ironically, the Obama Administration's recent disrespectful treatment of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, punishing him for not acceding to an anti-Israel point of view, has had an unintended consequence of rallying Israelis and their besieged nation's supporters around his Likud government. Thankfully, it has virtually halted a peace process, led by Holocaust revisionist Mahmoud Abbas, intended to purloin pieces of the already way too tiny Jewish State, perilously decreasing Israel's security. Conceding anything in this dysfunctional part of the world is indeed viewed as weakness. Like vultures sensing a wounded prey, Israel's surrounding enemies would yet again pounce on her if she were so foolish as to cede even one inch of her precious land. So-called Palestinian Arabs are truly morphed Jordanians; thus any sovereign state for them belongs within the borders of their true homeland Jordan. Such a solution, although politically untenable at this time, would go a long way in solving a heretofore intractable dilemma. If someday sanity prevails, perhaps it will come to pass. We can only hope!

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 Emanuel A. Winston, March 28, 2010.

This below is by Caroline B. Glick and it appeared in Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=171861, Contact her by email atcaroline@carolineglick.com and visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com

As you read and absorb the following by Caroline Glick, you may conclude a series of Israeli governments have not only failed to protect their people and their Land but, they are getting ready to flee rather than fight to defend themselves and their ancient country.

In Israel's earliest days, the Kibbutz farmers had to go out nightly as "Shomrim" (Guards) to patrol their Land from marauding Arab Muslims who came to steal, burn their fields and kill Jews.

Clearly, it is time to follow the sensible Biblical injunction that, "When a Thief comes at night, one can assume that he will also kill you, therefore, it is best, even an obligation to protect your life and kill him (them) first".

It is time to take back all our stolen Land and drive out the Arabs, Bedouin Muslims — all of whom will eventually try to kill you and yours.


As the local and international press corps converged on Jerusalem's Old City to cover the Arab riots at the Temple Mount two weeks ago, little mention was made of the fact that Jerusalem was not the only flashpoint. In Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Israeli Arab rioters supported by far-left protesters stoned buses. Israeli Arabs firebombed motorists on Highway 443 and on the roads to Beersheba. In the North, cars were stoned.

These little-reported attacks are the consequence of one of the most dangerous emerging threats to Israel's national survival: the rapidly escalating radicalization of Israel's Arab citizens.

Over the past decade and at a frenzied pace since the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, acting at least partially at the direction of the Israeli Islamic Movement and with the active support of the far left, Israeli Arabs and Beduin have launched a massive assault on the state. The relevant national authorities including the courts, the state prosecution, the police, the IDF, the Jewish National Fund, the Israel Lands Authority and the Ministry of Interior have failed to defend against it.

Firebombing Jewish-owned vehicles is small potatoes in comparison to developments at the center of mass of the Israeli Arab onslaught: state land. Over the past decade, Israeli Arabs have seized millions of dunams of state land.

The dimensions of this phenomenon were spelled out in last year's State Comptroller's Report. While the local and international Left pillories Israel when the state tries to demolish a handful of the thousands of illegal Arab buildings in Jerusalem, what goes unmentioned is that by the end of 2007 there were more than 100,000 illegally built structures in Israel.

The overwhelming majority were constructed on state land seized by Arab land thieves in the Negev and the Galilee. By the end of 2009, the number of illegal buildings grew to an estimated 150,000. The scope of the theft is so vast that the Comptroller's Report referred to it as a "national scourge."

Most of the open land in Israel is owned by the state and administered by farmers, ranchers and the IDF. Farmers and ranchers — particularly in the North and the South, but in areas around Jerusalem as well — are daily terrorized by neighboring Arab thieves. The thieves destroy their fences, steal and slaughter their livestock and threaten to murder them if they raise any objections, mend their fences or install surveillance cameras. Many farmers and ranchers — like most business owners around Beersheba and Upper Nazareth — are coerced into paying protection money to the same Arab gangs who target their fields.

As the Comptroller's Report makes clear, the threatened and abused farmers have no official body to turn to for help. While incidence of land theft has increased more than 50 percent in recent years, enforcement measures at all levels have decreased by 81%. In 2007, courts issued just 5,400 judgments on illegal construction. Of these, only 193 led to demolition orders. And just a handful of those orders were carried out.

Israel has no official policy for contending with the problem. A police unit formed specifically to enforce land laws has only recruited 55% of its allotted personnel and most of those 64 policemen devote their energies to routine policing duties.

The absence of state protection has led farmers and ranchers to abandon their lands. For instance, continuous harassment by Arabs from the village of Tuba Zangaria forced Kibbutz Kfar Hanassi just east of Rosh Pinna to abandon 4,000 dunams (400 hectares) of land. Neighboring Kibbutz Amiad abandoned 13,000 dunams. Upper Nazareth is poised to abandon 20,000 dunams. The police refuse to even escort Upper Nazareth's Mayor Shimon Gafsou to threatened areas.

In the South, the situation is no different. Illegal Beduin squatters from the Taarbiya tribe that migrated to Israel from Sinai have gone to war against the Omer Local Council for trying to build a new neighborhood on land they illegally seized. They have shot at contractors, attacked police escorts. They burned down an electrical transformer station, leaving the area with no electricity for over a week, and then burned down a replacement station.

Omer Council Chairman Pini Badash has been the target of repeated attacks. Badash bought an airplane to document the illegal construction as part of his efforts to force the state to act. The Beduin burned his plane. They burned his wife's car in front of her and have repeatedly threatened to kill him.

LIKE THE farmers and local councils, the army has simply given up. The IDF has abandoned training areas throughout the North and South. For instance, the Nevetim Air Force base has abandoned 17,000 dunams stolen by Beduin. According to the Comptroller's Report, 220-250 families have squatted on the land and built approximately 800 illegal buildings. Between 2004 and 2008, there was a 53% increase in the number of illegally built structures.

Rather than defend its bases and the surrounding areas, the IDF has limited the movement of its own officers. The IAF has prohibited its fighter pilots (!) from traveling alone on the highway linking Tel Arad with Beersheba via the Shoket junction. Due to repeated shooting attacks on Jewish-owned vehicles, the pilots who protect our skies are required to travel in convoys of no less than four vehicles.

Just as its grantees played a lead role in the formation of the UN's Goldstone Commission and the drafting of its defamatory accusations against Israel, organizations supported by the New Israel Fund have played a large role in abetting the Israeli Arab theft of state lands. NIF- and EU-supported groups like Adallah, the Regional Council of Unrecognized Arab Villages, Um Batin and The Steering Committee for Planning and Protection of Arab Rights in the Negev have waged a political and legal assault on Israel to prevent the state from protecting itself and its citizens from Beduin and Arab land crimes.

Cowed by the twin forces of the Red-Green alliance, successive governments have tried to solve the problem by buying off the Arabs. The Olmert government built a village for the Taarbiya Beduin outside of Omer and gave each family NIS 180,000 to leave the illegal structures they had built on state land and accept free houses. Most agreed to relocate, but the 50 families who remained in place stepped up their assaults on Omer while demanding to receive ownership rights for the land they stole.

Just this past Sunday the cabinet unanimously approved a multi-year program to transfer NIS 800 million to 12 Beduin and Arab communities. The government touted the move as a "stimulus plan."

LUCKILY FOR Israel, the leadership vacuum created by successive governments is beginning to be filled today by a group of law abiding, idealistic young Israelis. The New Israeli Guardsman is a voluntary organization formed two years ago by the sons and daughters of distressed farmers and ranchers.

Yoel Zilberman was an officer in one of the IDF's elite commando units who got tired of watching his father — a farmer at Moshav Tzipori in the Western Galilee — despair as Arab gangs from surrounding villages cut his fences, stole his livestock and wrecked his crops. During his furloughs, Zilberman began carrying out night time patrols of his father's fields and repeatedly intercepted thieves as they infiltrated his land.

Over time, Zilberman realized that it wasn't enough for him to guard his father's land. His efforts just deflected the problem onto his neighbors. So he organized his friends, the sons and daughters of other farmers in the area, and formed the New Israeli Guardsmen, named after the original Guardsmen — the first Jewish self-defense organization in the Land of Israel in the modern era, which was formed a hundred years ago.

The New Israeli Guardsmen which today operates throughout the Galilee and the Negev — fields more than 650 volunteers who devote up to 20 days a year to guarding land or mending vandalized farm equipment and fences.

Recognizing that the long-term solution to the problem is to increase the public's dedication to classic Zionist ideals of Jewish control over the Land of Israel, in addition to building and manning guard posts, the Guardsmen organize courses and lectures on Jewish history, Zionism, Jewish philosophy and other relevant topics at their guard posts for the general public.

Next year, 30 young men carefully vetted from a pool of 300 volunteers will receive a yearlong deferral of their military service to serve with the Guardsmen. They will be split into three groups of 10 and man three guard posts in the Galilee and the Negev. Each guard station controls between 5,000 and 20,000 dunams. In addition to their guard duties, the young men will receive agricultural training and study Jewish history, Talmud, philosophy and Arab history. Zilberman hopes that the program will inspire its participants to choose farming as their vocation after they finish their army service.

The Guardsmen operate on a shoestring budget scraped together from private donors. Contingent on raising the necessary funds, the group intends to increase its corps of volunteers tenfold by 2013. If it meet its goals, 6,000 volunteers and 300 national service program members will operate from 30 guard stations in the Galilee and the Negev and protect between 400,000 and 600,000 dunams of state land. They also hope to reach out to Jews in the Diaspora and encourage them to come to Israel and volunteer for the Guardsmen, to bring them closer to the story and fate of the State of Israel.

Zilberman believes that the success of the Guardsmen will empower the state to take the necessary action to enforce Israel's laws and so defeat the strategic threat posed by the radicalization of the Israeli Arab sector. And he is probably right. At any rate, it is all but certain that the government could take no action without the Guardsmen.

In light of the growing force of the international campaign to delegitimize Israel's right to exist, no government in Jerusalem will act unless it feels it has strong and stable backing from a mobilized citizenry. For instance, it is hard to imagine how Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu could have defended Jerusalem as stalwartly as he did during his trip to Washington this week if he hadn't known that the public is with him.

By the same token, the state will only enforce its laws without prejudice when it is certain that the public will rally behind it. Our leaders need to know that the public will stand behind them when the New Israel Fund grantees collaborate with the international Left and the Islamic Movement to demonize Israel as racist for protecting the property rights of the state and its citizens.

Israel, like all democracies, is only as strong as its citizens. What organizations like the New Israeli Guardsmen show is that Israel's citizens are strong. We are willing to bear the burdens of a free people. As Pessah, the Jewish festival of freedom, approaches, we must support their endeavors and demand that our leaders follow their example.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Miriam Adahan, March 28, 2010.

This was written by Lauren Gelfond Feldinger.

A former POW in Egypt remembers war, surrender, captivity and a lifelong struggle to reclaim his life.


It was fall of 1973, when paratrooper Uri Ehrenfeld volunteered for an assignment in Sinai.

The southernmost post at the Suez Canal was known as "the summer camp" and Ehrenfeld, exhausted from training, dreamed about downtime in the still, desert landscape. When he arrived, he sighed deeply, taking in the moonlit views.

But less than 36 hours later, the silence was shattered, as Egyptian forces took the IDF soldiers by surprise.

The skeleton crew fended off the Egyptians for one week, but suffered a high percentage of casualties and fatalities. Finally, defense minister Moshe Dayan ordered surrender. A cease-fire photo of Ehrenfeld's comrade Hillel Unsdorfer embracing a Torah scroll as the crew prepared for captivity would become an enduring symbol of the Yom Kippur War.

A few moments later, a photographer also captured Ehrenfeld's feeling of humiliation, as the Egyptian soldiers commanded him to take down the Israeli flag, raise the Egyptian flag and salute. "At least there is now proof I am alive," he thought as his hands were chained behind his back and his eyes blindfolded.

Already wounded twice, sleepless, hungry, in mourning for his fallen comrades and feeling abandoned by God, he took a deep breath and started to detach from what was going on around him. The practice would mark the beginning of a long journey that has lasted 37 years until today.

Interrogated and tortured in Egypt, and then heavily interrogated again by Israelis upon his release two and a half months later, his ability to detach would save his life and his sanity.

But readjusting to life afterward has not been easy. Ehrenfeld, 56, has hundreds of pieces of shrapnel still embedded in his head, eyes, mouth and body that frequently cause infections and require surgery. The disks in his spine are damaged and old fractures still ache. Gangrene cost him a few of his toes, and damaged the nerves in his leg. The psychological aspects have been even worse, haunting him in his waking and sleeping hours, at work and at home in Jerusalem with his wife and three sons.

It wasn't until some 25 years after Ehrenfeld's release that researcher Zahava Solomon brought to public light the long-term, traumatic effects of captivity. Only in the last decade have former POWs suffering post-traumatic stress disorder became eligible for state support and services and to be recognized as wounded veterans. "Israel has about 1,100 former POWs and 90 percent or more suffer PTSD," Ehrenfeld says.

Twelve years after cofounding Erim Balaila (Awake at Night), a support and advocacy organization for former POWs, Ehrenfeld finally finished writing his memoirs (working title "Ordered to Surrender"), together with author and former Ma'ariv diplomatic correspondent Ilan Bahar. Ehrenfeld, together with former POW Igal Kochlani, collected nearly 200 stories from POWs from every war, for an anthology, also to be published with Bahar. The books are now in negotiations with various publishers.

Ehrenfeld also consulted on the TV series Hahatufim (Kidnapped). The show is accurate, he argues, though he has asked that the name be changed. "We were not kidnapped," he explains. "We were prisoners of war."

When you went down to Sinai, did you have any fears that a war was brewing?

I was not scared at all. I joined the army two weeks after the matriculation exams in 1971, and the first two years were great fun and interesting, and nobody thought about things like war, injuries or captivity. We didn't feel in danger at all. The glory of 1967 was still in the air and there was no fear about anything. We also didn't care about the political situation in those days. Once we joined the army, we became disconnected from political issues; we didn't read the newspaper or listen to the news.

How did you end up in Sinai?

We had summer training in the Golan Heights. [One day] my very admired commander asked for volunteers. The Suez Canal was a sort of summer vacation. Soldiers walked around in sandals and shorts in the sun and sand. It was pastoral and quiet. They even fished. Did I want to go? Of course. I had been two and a half years in service and felt I deserved a vacation.

Were you told of intelligence warnings?

The Bar-Lev Line was the southernmost stronghold along the Suez Canal. Because Yom Kippur was approaching they wanted to strengthen the outpost. I crossed the country south to Sinai on a truck on a Thursday afternoon. Around 2:30 a.m. I reached the outpost opposite Port Tawfik. [Most of the] other soldiers were technicians or from the Armored Corps. The funny thing is that they had stationed only one [extra] person from the Paratroopers — one extra person is not considered a strengthening — it was really silly. I didn't realize I was going to be the only one.

Did the outpost live up to its reputation as a summer camp?

I woke up Friday morning and went to guard in my "biblical sandals" and undershirt and a weapon. It was very quiet, the canal was very blue, and the desert was golden yellow. I really enjoyed it; it was so pastoral; it felt like a hug from nature.

What were you doing when the first shot rang out?

It was Saturday, Yom Kippur, and I had been fasting. I was hot and thirsty. I was guarding a piece of rope. Around noon, we were suddenly shelled like hell. It was like an earthquake — the land moved, there were mushrooms of smoke, the air smelled like burned gunpowder and I was all alone, stationed at the entrance to the outpost. I radioed for someone to take the guard post so that I could put on my boots, vest, helmet and get my equipment. I didn't think it was a war. I thought maybe it was a local [attack] and in a few minutes would stop.

You hadn't eaten or drunk anything since the previous night because of the Yom Kippur fast. What did you do?

I drank a little water and a friend gave me a teaspoon of honey and one piece of candy. [On other days], we would have tinned rations — some canned food, but mostly crackers.

When did you realize it was a war?

Saturday night, at the end of Yom Kippur, I was stationed with another soldier, Yehuda Pakula, one meter away. The moonlight was very bright and he was telling me about his life, how he came alone from Australia and was living on Kibbutz Sde Eliahu. In the middle of the conversation he became quiet. I found him lying in a trench with a bullet in his head, dead. I didn't hear anything. It was a sniper shot across the Suez Canal.

You grew up in a religious family. Did you have any religious thoughts? Did you pray at this point?

I thought, "I am in hell." This was the first crack in my belief. [Pakula] was very religious, very quiet, a new immigrant on his own. I said to myself, "There is no God here. If there is, he is not calculating his steps." Two days later was the second crack. Another soldier was killed by a hand grenade. I thought "F--- God. This can't be real. God is not here."

Were you prepared professionally to handle what was happening?

We were severely shelled day and night, and shooting at the Egyptians as they were trying to cross the canal by boat. There was no time to sleep; I was awake for one week. Dozens of boats with soldiers were coming toward us and we knew that we were outnumbered. On top of that, most of us were wounded already. What amazed me the most was that we had a lot of heavy weapons that nobody knew how to operate. I was the only one trained. So I arranged for the cook to come help me, and if you ask me, he had never held a gun before. But in five minutes of instruction, he became my No. 2 man.

How did you get wounded?

On Monday morning I tried to locate the source of the shelling, so I had to climb out of the trench.

They were aiming at your position; didn't you know you would get shot at?

Of course. My friend put a helmet on his gun and gave them a target two meters away, and I climbed out with my binoculars. A shell came at me. I rolled into the trench and it exploded on the sandbags, less than two meters away. It was a huge blast — gunpowder, fire, sand, stones, noise. I couldn't open my eyes. At first I thought I was dead, but I felt my face wet with sweat and blood. I ran to the clinic and it had the smell of death — burned flesh and blood — and people were screaming. The doctor cleaned my face. I had shrapnel wounds all over my head, eyes, arms, hands, in my mouth and between the zipper in my vest, and the blast had burned my lungs, and my blood was everywhere. But the place was unbearable, and the doctor told me I would survive, so I went back to my post.

Still, I had to find where the shelling was coming from, so I climbed out of the trench again, while my partner covered me. I knew that there must be a commander aiming the soldiers. We used to call them monkeys because they would climb into the tall trees. So I tried to locate this monkey. But the minute I lifted my binoculars, another shell came at me. I rolled backward, but didn't make it into the trench, and it exploded maybe 80 centimeters away. I got wounded much worse.

How did you carry on despite pain and bleeding?

I saw a guy in surgery who was so severely wounded and there was no morphine and he faced it without screaming, and I knew this was helping the doctor, and it was a symbol to the wounded people and gave me the strength to keep fighting. There was also so much adrenaline.

Were there any moments of relief or inspiration?

The kitchen took a direct hit the first day and the only thing that wasn't destroyed was the potatoes. One day, in the middle of fighting, I am calling [the cook], Moishe? Moishe? and he doesn't answer. He has disappeared. Ten minutes later he climbs up to the post with a big dish of hot, boiling, steaming, salty, oily french fries. It was the smell of paradise. It was as if an angel appeared. How I blessed him. The sky is falling from bombs and explosions and this funny guy with a helmet half falling off his head goes and makes french fries. I kissed him; I hugged him. It was the funniest, most joyful, touching thing during the fighting.

After we ate together, he said, "Give me five more minutes" and he went to bring french fries to the other posts. I always tell people that bravery is also helping a friend, considering another person's needs, endangering yourself to ease others. I always tell this to all our friends and all the machos at Beit Halohem [the veterans' sport center], that you don't have to be a fighter to be a hero.

Did you come face-to-face with Egyptian soldiers?

One morning, an Egyptian soldier crossed [the bridge] by himself, walking, and was shouting for water. He was about 100 meters from me. I didn't have the will to share with him the little water I had left. I wasn't sure if it was an ambush, and I wasn't sure what to do, and we had an order not to let anybody in, so I shot around his legs, hoping he would turn around and run away. But [he] didn't. He kept getting closer. His AK-47 in his hands. I could see the whites of his eyes. Very few soldiers had faced face-to-face combat and we had been in a siege for 180 hours and it was too much for me. I thought it's him or me, so I picked up my gun. You have to be the first to shoot.

You weren't sure it was an ambush; did you consider shooting him in the leg instead of killing him?

If I shot him in the legs, he would have died a slow death with a lot of suffering. Our doctor didn't have any bandages or morphine left, and by this point the clinic was already filled with very badly wounded people and there was no place for him, and there were no men free to help bring him to the clinic or to guard him there. There was also an order not to let anybody in and not to take any prisoners.

When did you realize that you could not win this battle?

After a week of fighting, six Zodiac rubber boats with navy commandos tried to rescue us, but they were shelled and they retreated. When I saw them go back to the mother boat, I knew nobody would come rescue us. If the top elite marine unit was not able to get close, nobody will.

How were you captured?

I was going to fight to the last bullet. But the unit commander asked me what I thought about surrendering through the Red Cross. I said, "Are you crazy? I have thousands of bullets, mortar shells and hand grenades. No way."

Later I found out it wasn't his idea but a command from Moshe Dayan. Suddenly there was a cease-fire and it was very quiet. I knew if I sat down I would fall asleep. So I paused and thought, maybe it is better to stay alive and give up our dignity than to die with dignity. Then I destroyed all my weapons, papers, uniforms, badges, everything. We all agreed to give up to the Red Cross and let the events roll. Maybe the idea that we would not stay alive led them to accept the idea.

But we had a few terms for our surrender: We could collect the bodies of the dead soldiers; they would be delivered immediately back to Israel; the wounded would be immediately treated; we could take the Torah scroll with us from the makeshift synagogue; and we would take the tefillin and prayer books — there were a number of religious soldiers. They agreed.

Half an hour before the Egyptians took us, Moshe Dayan radioed in canceling the order and saying surrender was "optional." But we had destroyed our weapons and equipment; it was already too late.

We crossed the Suez Canal with Egyptian military boats, rowing like it was in the last century. There was no interaction between us. When we arrived, they took me [and two others] back to lead them through the bunkers and prove that we hadn't booby-trapped anything. At the observation post where I was wounded, they conducted a flag ceremony. They made me take down the Israeli flag that was now full of holes from bullets and shrapnel, and I had to put up the Egyptian flag. I felt like a doormat, but the fact that there was a photographer taking pictures that would go around the world felt like life insurance. It was proof I was alive.

Then they took you to captivity?

They put us in handcuffs and blindfolds and put us on a bus. During the two- or three-hour ride they beat us the whole time. We got to Abasiya military prison in the heart of Cairo; it doesn't exist anymore today. The first four days we were made to stand, except when they took us to interrogate and beat us. They beat me like hell. I lost consciousness many times; they would throw water on me to wake me up. I was so thirsty I would suck on my head covering to get water. They beat us with electric wires, guns, rubber clubs.

Soon I found out that physical injury and torture is nothing compared to psychological torture. Hearing my friends screaming and shouting and having no possibility to help them was part of the psychological torture. Then they threw us one on top of the other in the back of a pickup truck and took me to section four of the prison, cell number 19. I was two and a half months in solitary confinement.

What did your cell look like?

It was 1.80 meter x 2 meters, 4 meters high, with one light bulb on 24 hours/7 days and a small window at the top. The walls had been painted about 100 years ago; they were peeling, dirty, stained with bugs and blood and spiders and yuk; it was disgusting. The floor was cement with little stones in it. In the corner there was a rubber pan; that was the toilet. There was no bed, no blankets. It was very hot during the day and very cold at night.

Were you still in the same uniform that you had put on on Yom Kippur, one week earlier?

Yes. I was barefoot and in this uniform that had become hard like asbestos from blood, sweat, gun grease, oil and dust. It had a life of its own.

What did you think about alone in that cell?

I lost contact with time. I was wounded, very weak and terribly hungry. They pushed me inside and locked the door and I fell on the floor and stayed there. My head was empty for the first month and a half. I was constantly taken to interrogation, sometimes once a day, sometimes 20-30 times a day and sometimes I was alone for days. In the beginning I couldn't stand up; I was too weak and they had beaten me with electric wires on my ankles, which caused a terrible infection. But when the door would open, there was a rule that you must stand straight in the farthest corner. I had to sleep with my ears and eyes open or be beaten very badly.

After a month and a half, I recovered a little bit and started a routine. I would walk back and forth thousands of times. I would sweep the floor with my hands. Every day around noon a ray of light would come through the window, and I would stand on my toes to let the sun touch my face. This was my only connection to the outside world.

Did you think you might die in captivity?

I hardly had thoughts. It's hard to explain. In such a situation, you are dealing with minute-to-minute survival. You have to fill up your day so that you don't become insane; so that you stay normal. But I didn't succeed [laughs].

What did you think about during the torture?

My mind disconnected from my body. Being pissed off was worse than the physical pain. I blocked my mind to observe. I learned to rule my thoughts, and in a few bad interrogations — and there were quite a few — it was as if I let my soul out of my body. Once you are in such an extreme situation you teach yourself — you better — or else you will go crazy.

You didn't feel pain?

No. I felt the shame of some things. And okay, when they took out my toenails [on one foot], I felt the pain, but I didn't let it touch my soul. I felt it as if it was not me experiencing it. You focus on the part of the body experiencing the pain and you disconnect from it. You scream sometimes; sometimes you laugh. It doesn't help, but it drives them crazy. Until today sometimes I laugh when I'm in great pain. It is a way to be in control, even though you don't control anything, except that you can breathe.

Were the methods of torture similar to the ones shown on Hahatufim — electric shock, being burned with cigarettes?

Yes. I have scars all over my body. But that wasn't the worst. The worst was when they would hang me upside down with my hands chained under my knees and put a metal pipe under my knees, under my hands. They would swing me up and down and laugh and tell jokes. It was like being inside a press bearing down on your bones. Then one day they found out I'd lied about what unit I was in. I had told them I was in Nahal to hide that I was in the paratroops. When they found out, they put a cloth over my head and took me outside to a firing squad. I was sure I was dead at first. [But] they only pretended and shot by my ears.

Were you offered medical treatment?

I was screaming for a doctor. It took a month before a doctor came and took me out of my cell, and there I met 15 of my friends who also needed a doctor. The doctor from our post was translating into English what we needed, because we were not allowed to talk. None of us had been showered or cleaned, but we each got a penicillin shot using the same needle. I almost lost my leg from that infection [on the ankle and toes].

I was also in a lot of pain because the handcuffs were squeezing a piece of shrapnel that was in my wrist. One day I couldn't suffer it anymore. I pulled my legs through my handcuffed arms [to bring my arms to the front]; took a piece of rust falling off the door and sharpened it on the floor and cut myself. All the disgusting infection and shrapnel poured out and I immediately felt better.

After Israel arranged a prisoner exchange, how did you guys feel on the flight back?

They told us lies every day, like that they had conquered Israel all the way to Tel Aviv. I thought that Israel had been wiped off the map, so I didn't believe it was real until I saw Tel Aviv from the window. For a couple of minutes we were singing and shouting and we were so high. But when we arrived at the airport, we noticed that we didn't know anyone. There were military people, journalists and airport workers. There were no friends. Our families weren't there — why?

In the airport we showered and they gave us clean uniforms and put us in a taxi and told us not to talk to anyone. We saw our family for 24 hours and then they took us to Zichron Ya'acov.

What was it like in the military interrogation center at Zichron?

When we got there, we noticed it was surrounded by barbed wire and that no friends or family were allowed to visit us there. It was heavily guarded and we were heavily interrogated. I was there for four days; I was "lucky" because all of us who had injuries were taken to Sheba Hospital in Tel Hashomer by ambulance for treatment every day and then back to interrogation. I was wounded, so I had to stay in the hospital for a month and a half.

It was preferable to be in a hospital than with the IDF interrogators?

Of course. Everybody preferred that. Zichron was like being a POW in a way. Closed. Barbed wire. You are not free. You eat when they tell you to eat. All the time you are in intelligence interrogations. Even the doctor was acting as if he was [interrogating]. I don't think they were sensitive to our experience. This is one reason we are angry until today. It did a lot of harm and built up a lot of bad feelings.

How did everyone else treat you?

We were considered heroes, but the Ministry of Defense was looking for some people to punish for giving up military secrets. They took two guys to a court-martial and sent them to prison — they never gave up any secrets. After the trial was over they were released quietly, but it took us a while to clear their names and they still suffer from this today. [A few years ago] we had a meeting at the Defense Ministry with a very senior IDF general. He told us, "You know, it's no great honor to be taken prisoner in war."

Thirty-seven years have passed since you fought at the Suez Canal and were a POW in Egypt. How do these events still affect you? Are you still there in a way?

No. But it is with me, in me. It is a big part of my life.

I won't tell you everything. I will say that I don't sleep well. Sometimes I don't sleep at all. Every small noise makes me jump. I can't stand wasting time; I'm possessed. I have problems with food; I have to make sure the refrigerator and cabinets are packed with food. I can fast if I choose to, but it's a problem to fast on Yom Kippur or before a surgery, it's very hard.

You mean that you can be hungry if it's your choice, but not if someone else is forcing that on you?

Yes, exactly. I like to be in control. When we got back from Egypt, they told us to burn our uniforms. I didn't agree. I took it with me. I have sentimental feelings toward certain things.

Because you don't want this experience to be forgotten?

Maybe that's also why I wrote my story, because it's an important chapter in history.

You are carrying all these psychological and physical scars, but it's hard to see. Do you hide that?

I taught myself to have a shutter inside. I give lectures all over the country and abroad. I'm talking but I'm not there.

You mean that you can still shut off your heart from your mind?


How does your experience inform your reactions to current POW negotiations?

I personally and our organization have fought for Gilad Schalit's release from the moment he was captured. We support the family and we lead events [on holidays] and with Knesset members. As a fighter raised in this country, one of the most important values of a healthy society is being responsible to each other. Not only to those alive, but to the dead. At the moment of surrender, before we crossed the Suez Canal, I and a few friends went around the stronghold and gathered the bodies of dead soldiers, wrapped them in blankets and brought them to shelter on stretchers. For me this was one of the most important things I ever did in my life.

This should be the attitude leading us in respect for each other and means everything regarding Gilad Schalit. For me, for us, the phrase "price" [when talking about prisoner exchanges] is a bad, strong, ugly word and makes it like you are going to the supermarket. It demeans the issue to the lowest, most shameful place to put a price tag on an Israeli soldier. I reject the idea that there is a price.

How realistic is the Hahatufim series?

A friend of mine had a heart attack two weeks ago watching it; it brought back so many memories. For me, we helped them a lot in their research so a lot of things we are seeing on the show are coming from what we have told them. People think they are exaggerating, don't realize how exact and real it is. When I watch it, I feel like I'm back at Zichron.

Does the Pessah story of the Jewish exodus out of Egypt and the holiday have special meaning for you? What are you going to do this year?

It does mean more to me than other people; the idea of freedom. I put a chair and glass of wine for Gilad Schalit, Ron Arad and all the POWs and MIAs.

You think Ron Arad is alive?

Your guess is as good as mine. But as long as he is missing in action, for me, he is alive.

Does remembering how you were treated in captivity cause you to consider how other prisoners in Israeli jails are treated?

People in Israeli jails have privileges that we never had, so you can't compare. But I do think about their rights; all people deserve their basic rights.

What happened to the Torah scroll that your unit saved?

It was held in a museum in Cairo, and on the last day of Ezer Weizman's presidency, I was invited to a ceremony at Beit Hanassi, because [Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak returned the Torah scroll to Israel. It's now in a synagogue at Heichal Shlomo [in Jerusalem].

Would it be difficult for you to meet Egyptians today?

No. In fact two months ago I received an open invitation to visit the Egyptian military attaché in Tel Aviv. I will definitely go.

How have your politics been influenced by your experience in war and captivity?

I learned that life is more important than land. I am for life.

Contact miriam adahan by email at emett@netvision.net.il This appeared in the Jerusalem Post.

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, March 28, 2010.

Dear friends,

Next Monday night Jews all over the world will sit down to celebrate the Seder which opens the Pesach holiday (Passover).

This significant joyous Holiday is also called THE HOLIDAY OF FREEDOM to comemmorate freedom from slavery and bondage. It is also the Holiday of Renewal, as in Spring.

Jews have a propensity for disunity. The divisions among us persist since ancient times, through our entire history until this very day.

It took Moses 40 years to try shape the Jews into a unified nation, but even he, the greatest leader that ever lived, failed (and was punished by God).

Later, after the greatest Jewish kings David and Shlomo (Salomon), their united country broke into two kingdoms Judea and Israel.

Political divisions, call it the liberal left versus the national right, weakened the nation and facilitated the Roman victory, the destruction of the Temple and exile.

So, when you contemplate the significance of this wonderful Holiday, pray first of all for UNITY. Pray for FREEDOM. Not only FREEDOM from slavery but also from bias and propaganda.

FREEDOM from anti-Semitism and FREEDON from those who conspire to steal our historic land of ISRAEL, our VALUES, our CULTURE, our HERITAGE, our HISTORY and our INDEPENDENCE.


Do you really believe Obama, Hillary and the Arabs have it in them to stop Jews from building Jerusalem???


Your Truth Provider, Yuval.

To Go To Top

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


After I explained President Obama's pre-existing campaign against Israel, a reader declared that this will happen so long as most Jews vote for Democrats. The reader meant well and had a good point. But he also can be misunderstood.

MISUNDERSTANDING: His point can be misunderstood putting full responsibility on American Jews for enabling Obama to harm Israel. Obama, however, won handily, and by many more votes and much more support than Jews provided.

GOOD POINT: The wise point the reader made is that Jews do not vote in their own interest. They vote for what and whom they think is good for the country as a whole. They may be perceptive about this or mistaken, but they are not selfish.

The Jewish Political Caucus explains that by voting almost as a bloc for Democrats, secular Jews get to be taken for granted. The tendency is for Democratic politicians feel they don't need to promise much to Jews and for Republican politicians to feel it that eliciting Jewish support is futile.

PERSPECTIVE ON WHY OBAMA WON: Compare the reader's comment with these main reasons for Obama's electoral victory:

Americans war-weary (Are they less tired, now?)

Annual deficit high (Now it's tripled)

Corporations abandoned pension and medical plans (Expenses rising faster now)

Democratic Congressional minority blocked appointments and reform, but public noticed only lack of accomplishment. Polarization got nasty.

Obama was eloquent and seemed charming.

Media bias, failing to trace Obama's mysterious radical, Radical Muslim, and antisemitic associations and support, his failure to have revealed any position during his brief political career, his constant zig-zagging, to put it politely, and his picking mostly anti-Israel advisers. My fellow Jews often get deceived by Jewish names and skull caps, not realizing that a Jew's ideology may be anti-Zionist.

Racism: The New York Times looKed forward to an historic election. It implied that it would be indecent to deny a black this historic achievement. It also shamed readers not to vote for his opponent, implying would be racist. Blacks voted for Obama as a racial bloc, but nobody shamed them for racism.

And then the recession struck. Americans tend to attribute events to the sitting President and his Party, though these events were building up from before the Bush regime and the Democrats controlled Congress. The recession was not a partisan event, but one in which a bull market mood gripped the entire country and warnings were not heeded. In response, our ruling class, not just Democrats and not just Republicans, spent our money rescuing big business and letting small businesses perish. Obama stands for big business, trial lawyers that prey on them, and for big labor that bankrupts state and local governments. Jews thought they were picking a liberal.

And then Obama's rival named Sarah Palin for Vice-President. Her inexperience neutralized any campaign issue about Obama's inexperience.

WHY DID SECULAR JEWS VOTE FOR OBAMA? Obama promised change, they wanted change, and they did not press him to define it. They assumed he was liberal, but he is both radical and reactionary. They did not expect him to institute a kind of fascism or corporate state, with predominant government control, excessive costs, and eventually U.S. business too weighed down by government and regulations to compete with foreign companies. They did not realize he would go after Israel. He gave them false assurances about that.

Not just the Jews but the whole country must wake up. It is waking up. (For series of prior articles on U.S.-Israel rift, see below)


Bedouin in Rahat, Israel (A.P./Tara Todras-Whitehill)

The U.S. media report Arab riots in Jerusalem [and some of the rocket attacks from Gaza). The media omits, however, other reports occurring in the same period. "In Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Israeli Arab rioters supported by far-left protesters stoned buses. Israeli Arabs firebombed motorists on Highway 443 and on the roads to Beersheba. In the North, cars were stoned."

"These little-reported attacks are the consequence of one of the most dangerous emerging threats to Israel's national survival: the rapidly escalating radicalization of Israel's Arab citizens."

"Over the past decade and at a frenzied pace since the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, acting at least partially at the direction of the Israeli Islamic Movement and with the active support of the far left, Israeli Arabs and Bedouin have launched a massive assault on the state. The relevant national authorities including the courts, the state prosecution, the police, the IDF, the Jewish National Fund, the Israel Lands Authority and the Ministry of Interior have failed to defend against it."

"...at the center of mass of the Israeli Arab onslaught: state land. Over the past decade, Israeli Arabs have seized millions of dunams of state land." [A dunam is about 2.5 acres.] Israeli Arabs and Bedouin have about 150,000 illegal dwellings, mostly on land they stole.

Most of the open land in Israel is owned by the state and administered by farmers, ranchers and the IDF. Farmers and ranchers — particularly in the North and the South, but in areas around Jerusalem as well — are daily terrorized by neighboring Arab thieves. The thieves destroy their fences, steal and slaughter their livestock and threaten to murder them if they raise any objections, mend their fences or install surveillance cameras. Many farmers and ranchers — like most business owners around Beersheba and Upper Nazareth — are coerced into paying protection money to the same Arab gangs who target their fields."

"As the Comptroller's Report makes clear, the threatened and abused farmers have no official body to turn to for help. While incidence of land theft has increased more than 50 percent in recent years, enforcement measures at all levels have decreased by 81%. In 2007, courts issued just 5,400 judgments on illegal construction. Of these, only 193 led to demolition orders. And just a handful of those orders were carried out." [When implemented, Arabs riot and the outside world condemns not the thieves, not the illegal builders, and not the rioters, but the justice system for occasionally enforcing the law.]

"Israel has no official policy for contending with the problem."

"The absence of state protection has led farmers and ranchers to abandon their lands. For instance, continuous harassment by Arabs from the village of Tuba Zangaria forced Kibbutz Kfar Hanassi just east of Rosh Pinna to abandon 4,000 dunams (400 hectares) of land. Neighboring Kibbutz Amiad abandoned 13,000 dunams. Upper Nazareth is poised to abandon 20,000 dunams. The police refuse to even escort Upper Nazareth's Mayor Shimon Gafsou to threatened areas."

"In the South, the situation is no different. Illegal Bedouin squatters from the Taarbiya tribe that migrated to Israel from Sinai [not even Palestinian Arabs] have gone to war against the Omer Local Council for trying to build a new neighborhood on land they illegally seized. They have shot at contractors, attacked police escorts. They burned down an electrical transformer station, leaving the area with no electricity for over a week, and then burned down a replacement station."

"Omer Council Chairman Pini Badash has been the target of repeated attacks. Badash bought an airplane to document the illegal construction as part of his efforts to force the state to act. The Bedouin burned his plane. They burned his wife's car in front of her and have repeatedly threatened to kill him."

"LIKE THE farmers and local councils, the army has simply given up. The IDF has abandoned training areas throughout the North and South. For instance, the Nevetim Air Force base has abandoned 17,000 dunams stolen by Bedouin.

According to the Comptroller's Report, 220-250 families have squatted on the land and built approximately 800 illegal buildings. Between 2004 and 2008, there was a 53% increase in the number of illegally built structures."

"Rather than defend its bases and the surrounding areas, the IDF has limited the movement of its own officers. The IAF has prohibited its fighter pilots (!) from traveling alone on the highway linking Tel Arad with Beersheba via the Shoket junction."

New Israel Fund beneficiaries "have played a large role in abetting the Israeli Arab theft of state lands. NIF- and EU-supported groups like Adallah, the Regional Council of Unrecognized Arab Villages, Um Batin and The Steering Committee for Planning and Protection of Arab Rights in the Negev have waged a political and legal assault on Israel to prevent the state from protecting itself and its citizens from Bedouin and Arab land crimes."

"Cowed by the twin forces of the Red-Green alliance, successive governments have tried to solve the problem by buying off the Arabs. The Olmert government built a village for the Taarbiya Bedouin outside of Omer and gave each family NIS 180,000 to leave the illegal structures they had built on state land and accept free houses. Most agreed to relocate, but the 50 families who remained in place stepped up their assaults on Omer while demanding to receive ownership rights for the land they stole." "Just this past Sunday the cabinet unanimously approved a multi-year program to transfer NIS 800 million to 12 Bedouin and Arab communities. The government touted the move as a 'stimulus plan.'"

"LUCKILY FOR Israel, the leadership vacuum created by successive governments is beginning to be filled today by a group of law abiding, idealistic young Israelis. The New Israeli Guardsman is a voluntary organization formed two years ago by the sons and daughters of distressed farmers and ranchers.

"Yoel Zilberman was an officer in one of the IDF's elite commando units who got tired of watching his father — a farmer at Moshav Tzipori in the Western Galilee — despair as Arab gangs from surrounding villages cut his fences, stole his livestock and wrecked his crops. During his furloughs, Zilberman began carrying out night time patrols of his father's fields and repeatedly intercepted thieves as they infiltrated his land."

He formed an organization, "The New Israeli Guardsmen — which today operates throughout the Galilee and the Negev — fields more than 650 volunteers who devote up to 20 days a year to guarding land or mending vandalized farm equipment and fences."

"Recognizing that the long-term solution to the problem is to increase the public's dedication to classic Zionist ideals of Jewish control over the Land of Israel, in addition to building and manning guard posts, the Guardsmen organize courses and lectures on Jewish history, Zionism, Jewish philosophy and other relevant topics at their guard posts for the general public."

The Guardsmen, not getting subsidized by the New Israel Fund, hardly have the means to do the full job. "Zilberman believes that the success of the Guardsmen will empower the state to take the necessary action to enforce Israel's laws and so defeat the strategic threat posed by the radicalization of the Israeli Arab sector. And he is probably right. At any rate, it is all but certain that the government could take no action without the Guardsmen."

"In light of the growing force of the international campaign to delegitimize Israel's right to exist, no government in Jerusalem will act unless it feels it has strong and stable backing from a mobilized citizenry. For instance, it is hard to imagine how Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu could have defended Jerusalem as stalwartly as he did during his trip to Washington this week if he hadn't known that the public is with him."

"By the same token, the state will only enforce its laws without prejudice when it is certain that the public will rally behind it. Our leaders need to know that the public will stand behind them when the New Israel Fund grantees collaborate with the international Left and the Islamic Movement to demonize Israel as racist for protecting the property rights of the state and its citizens." (Caroline Glick in IMRA, 3/26 http://www.imra.org.il/).

Ms. Glick gives a comprehensive picture of the rustling and land theft I have been reporting for years. I summed it up as an Arab renewal of their 1947 attempt to seize the country. People who think the problem is Jewish land-grabbing have been in the dark about Arab land-grabbing and the overall situation. They have accepted false claims that the Jews wantonly expelled the Arabs.

Starting with an ideology that presupposes the Arabs can do no wrong and the Jews can do no right, they go on to denounce Jews for getting court orders for Arab squatters to vacate property they own, for buying property, and for asserting national rights in an area of the former Mandate set up to become a Jewish state and in which the Arabs never had a country.

What kind of idealism is it on the part of Far Left Jews that encourages Arab land thieves to attack Jewish residents or passersby with weapons that can maim and kill? What do those Jews think would happen to them, if the Arabs conquer the country?


Chief of Staff Mullen, Sec. Clinton, Obama, Defense Sec. Gates announcing the treaty (A.P. photo/ David Ake)

The two countries' Presidents agreed upon a plan they will sign to reduce their nuclear arsenal.

Then they will turn to other reductions, including battlefield weapons.

U.S. negotiators claim that the agreement does not limit U.S. missile-defense, but the Russians claim it has binding language limiting it.

The agreement permits five exchanges a year of missile test data, and allows other tests to be kept secret Jonathan Weisman, Richard Boudreux, Wall St. J., 3/27, A7).

After the President signs, he would be expected to send the proposal to the Senate for ratification.

(To see original article on the pact, click here)


Serious peace negotiations are in the "interests" of all parties concerned. However, the New York Times is skeptical of Israeli PM Netanyahu's dedication to making peace. He is not giving the Obama administration "something to work with" "to resolve the poisonous contretemps over Jerusalem. "Mr. Obama was right to demand that Mr. Netanyahu repair the damage."

The Palestinian Arabs "are justifiably worried" that Israeli housing projects in areas they want for a new state "nibble away" at the land available for it. "The disputes with Israel have made Mr. Obama look weak and have given Palestinians and Arab leaders an excuse to walk away from the proximity talks." "Jerusalem's future must be decided in negotiations. Negotiations must soon become direct, or the problems won't be resolved.

The editors are pleased that Obama challenged Netanyahu, forcing public debate on the issues. "He must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully." (3/27.)

Here is another way to look at this. What public debate on the issues? The U.S. never has justified Palestinian Arab statehood, its demands that Israel reduce security measures while Arabs continue attempting terrorism, is one-sided demands of Israel, its demands that Israel release convicted terrorists, nor any linkage between the Arab-Israel conflict and Iran's bid for regional hegemony via nuclear weapons.

What "peace" can emerge from negotiations with the Arabs whose goal is not peace but conquest of non-Muslims? Claiming that negotiations are in the "interests" of all parties sounds nice, but what does it mean when one side doesn't want peace? Why is the Times skeptical of Israel's desire for peace, when the Palestinian Arabs are inciting to hatred and violence and refuse to negotiate?

Why should Israel repair damage deliberately inflicted by the Obama administration in manufacturing the crisis?

Why are the Arabs "justifiably worried" that Israeli housing projects will reduce the land available for their desired state, and the Times is not "justifiably worried" that Arab construction will reduce the land available for the Jewish state?

If Obama looks weak, he should have acted in good faith and not made excessive demands upon Israel and only upon Israel. His one-sided demands on Israel helped the Arabs hold out for U.S. pressure to get more Israeli concessions for them without their having to negotiate. Did this surprise Obama?

What do the editors mean, "Palestinians and Arab leaders?" Are the Palestinian leaders not Arabs?" The editors try hard to make them seem a different nationality.

Israel does not have to negotiate Jerusalem. It annexed Jerusalem.

Direct negotiations would be fairer, because the U.S. would not be weighing in on the Arab side, and because the Arabs would have to stop pretending the Israelis are beneath them.

After demanding a lot of Israel, the editors put out a pro forma line that Obama must press the Arabs just as forcefully. But the editors make no suggestions. Do they mean it? They would be embarrassed at what should be asked of the Arabs. 17 years after the Oslo Accords at which the Arabs pledged to eradicate terrorism, they have not. Neither have they ceased their propaganda of bigotry and of imperialism. To bring out those failings would show which side is the offender and how absurd it is to expect peace from totalitarian fanatics. That the Times will not do.


A letter to President Obama signed by 327 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives, urged him to calm down, make up with Israel, and focus on the danger of Iranian nuclear weapons. The Members of Congress wrote that a strong Israel makes for regional stability (Arutz-7, 3/28)

If the U.S. weakens Israel, the Arabs will seize the opportunity to attack it. That means war. The U.S. interest is in peace, freedom of the seas, tolerance, and democracy.


Iran has defenses like this (A.P./Farsi News Agency, Amir Hosseini)

Today's New York Times weekly review (3/28/10) reports a simulated Israeli raid on Iran and the repercussions. It anticipates fewer ill effects than I can imagine. It concludes that a raid would not accomplish much but a delay of a few years in Iranian nuclear development.

In the new issue of Commentary, Barry Rubin worries that a foreign raid would rouse nationalistic sympathy for the regime. He suggests alternatively that the U.S. equip and subsidize internal dissenters to rouse the people and split the Red Guards. He observes that Iranian protesters' hold signs in English, because they want the U.S. to lend at least moral support. Our President snubs them, too, not just Netanyahu.

The war games simulation has the U.S. keeping out of the strife, but Iran nevertheless attacks oil facilities and shipping lanes used by the U.S.. If Iran is expected to act that way, should the U.S. wait for its attack?

Same for Israel, which the simulators expect Iran's proxies to attack. A raid on Iran would turn out to be more than a raid like the ones on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities. Sometimes, raiders first knock out defenses against raids. This time, raiders may have to knock out retaliatory facilities, too. Policy here must be guided by practicality, not just desire.

The simulation assumes that Israel knows a limited raid may only delay the regime from developing nuclear weapons. Israelis feel not only saved for the time being, but also gaining time in which Iran's regime may be changed. If a raid gains three years, why not consider a raid every two years so the program stays incomplete?

These are serious issues and should be discussed soberly. This morning, some readers of the original article (available on my website) commented after several articles ignored the issues in the articles and changed the subject to whatever is on their minds. They made up general and grand assertions without substantiation. They called Israel names and they personalized the controversy by calling me an idiot, racist, and liar, discussing whether I am a Jew, stereotyping me as a bad example of Jews in gentile eyes, and claiming I am a dual citizen. Such empty, ad hominem attacks shed no light on the issues. (They leave all my points denounced in general but unchallenged in particular.) Since they violate canons of journalism and civility that I have posted, I delete them. They complain that I delete them because they dissent and I am afraid of dissent and am in a "hissy fit." Not afraid, disgusted!

Critical comments about the issues in the articles and with examples backing up accusations do not get deleted. Unfortunately, half of those who do comment give no evidence of knowledge of the issues, just of epithets.

For an example, when the news is full of U.S. demands upon Israel, and of Arab demands upon the U.S., a reader who purports to be patriotic comments that Israel should stop making demands upon the U.S. Why no objection to Arab demands upon the U.S.?

For another example, a reader brings out a false conspiracy theory that Israel made the U.S. war on Iraq. Fact is, Israel was concerned about Iran and not Iraq. The notion that Israel controls super-power U.S., that often takes the Arab side against it, is an antisemitic absurdity.


Hizbullah, Hamas, and Syria have missiles, too (AP/ESRI)

Israel is testing against a large-scale missile attack. Its missile defenses will take at least a year to put into place (Arutz-7, 3/28)

We have been discussing the likely missile attack on Israel if Israel were to raid Iran. It sounds as if the raid may occur, if at all, before Israeli defense is ready.


The King of Saudi Arabia is changing his country. He is trying to spread the wealth. Most citizens live as middle class. The population increase has fallen from 4% to 2.4%, which Patrick Seale attributes to more education. The country is building many schools and has 70,000 students attending colleges abroad.

Working through dialogue, King Abdallah Aziz is trying to dissuade Radical Muslim opponents and reform the population. Economic development is expanding. The country is trying to reconcile all the conflicting Arab groups in the region and add ties to other countries, such as China (IMRA, 3/28).

Reconcile conflicting Arab groups for what? Mr. Seale does not indicate any social reform and any reduction in the Saudi goal of spreading its version of aggressive Islam regardless of means.


Israeli troops clashed with Arabs planting bombs at the border between Gaza and Israel. Israelis and Arabs were killed. Hamas responded by taking responsibility for dealing with "Zionist aggression on the Palestinian civilians."

Defending against those planting roadside explosives, like the ones killing Americans in Afghanistan, are dealing with "Zionist aggression on the Palestinian civilians?", 3/28).

Hamas spokesman in red mask. (A.P./Hatem Moussa)

What kind of testimony did the UN Goldstone Commission think it was getting, when it asked Hamas' subjects whether casualties of the Israeli incursion were civilians or non-combatants?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by EYE on the UN, March 28, 2010.

This was written by Anne Bayefsky, Senior Fellow of the Hudson Institute and director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. It appeared in Commentary Magazine
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/ president-obama-s-priorities--human-rights-be-damned-15417


On Friday, March 26, 2010, the UN Human Rights Council's month-long session ended, along with any justification for believing that President Obama is a champion of human rights. The president insisted that America join the UN's lead human-rights body for the first time very early in his presidency, and the consequences are now painfully clear. The enemies of democracy and freedom are having a field day at the expense of American interests and values.

The Council, which meets in Geneva, is the personal playground of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. They hold the balance of power by controlling the Asian and African regional groups, which together form a majority at the Council. The Council's agenda is accordingly fixated on issues of priority to the Islamic bloc — number one, delegitimizing Israel; number two, trumping free speech in the name of Islam; and number three, avoiding any criticism of human-rights violations in their own backyards. None of which has anything to do with protecting human rights.

More troubling than the Council's growing infamy, however, is the Obama administration's relationship to it. The America on display in Geneva is an embarrassment, and the only people oblivious to how the U.S. is perceived by those assembled are the American representatives themselves.

Having jumped on the Council bandwagon last year without insisting on any reform-minded preconditions, U.S. diplomats now sit there taking it on the chin and lending predictable and immutable Council routines undeserved legitimacy. This past session, the Council adopted five resolutions condemning Israel and fewer resolutions on the rest of the world combined: one each on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, North Korea, Burma/Myanmar, and Guinea.

The other 187 states on the planet got a free pass from the Council, notwithstanding the pressing reality of Nigeria's butchered Christians, Saudi Arabia's gender apartheid, Egypt's systematic torture, China's iron fist, Sudan's genocide, and Russia's slain human-rights defenders. In fact, over the entire four-year history of the Council, more than half of all resolutions and decisions condemning any state have been directed at Israel alone.

This session, one of these Israel resolutions created yet another UN committee dedicated to the demonization of the Jewish state. The new body will be charged with monitoring compliance with the notorious Goldstone Report, which contains the diabolical accusation that Israel intended deliberately to murder civilians in Gaza rather than to defend itself from Hamas rocket attacks aimed at the Israeli civilian population. A 2009 General Assembly resolution had already called for "credible" investigations within a three-month period and more "follow-up."

Any Israeli investigation on the Gaza war that does not end in self-immolation will be dismissed out of hand. Nevertheless, in January Israel gave the UN a report running more than 60 pages detailing its continuing supervision and evaluation of the actions of the Israel Defense Forces, in accordance with the rule of law. The Palestinian side responded to the General Assembly's deadline by submitting a piece of paper from Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. He announced that he had set up a committee four days before the time ran out to begin to plan an investigation. Needless to say, the Palestinians who actually run Gaza and the terror campaign against Israeli citizens in the south of Israel, namely Hamas, did nothing at all.

This new UN Goldstone-implementation committee will be added to the existing collection of UN standing bodies already fixated on Israel-bashing, such as the UN Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, and the UN Division for Palestinian Rights. Dozens of reports on Palestinian rights and Israeli wrongs are also commissioned every year from myriad UN actors, including the secretary-general.

Congress has adopted provisions that deny American funds to the Inalienable Rights Committee, the Special Committee and the UN Palestinian Division, and unless it now takes quick action, American taxpayers will be footing 22 percent of the bill of this latest Goldstone outrage.

As happened with all the anti-Israel resolutions, the Obama administration perfunctorily voted against — to no avail. The administration then pulled its punches when explaining its vote on the Goldstone-implementation resolution. American Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe noted that her full speech could be found somewhere on a website, and then proceeded to make a telling omission from that speech when delivering her oral remarks, which were webcast around the world. When she read the entirety of the first few paragraphs, which called on both sides to conduct investigations, she skipped over just one sentence therein: "Hamas is a terrorist group and has neither the legitimacy nor the willingness to investigate credibly its repeated and deliberate violations of international law." Apparently, an honest statement that points out the obvious flaw in the logic of Goldstone-inspired investigations wouldn't have fit neatly into Obama's engagement strategy — or sit well with his preferred audience.

The Obama administration lost every time it called for the vote on a resolution at the Council session. But it failed even to get that close on the most troubling human-rights issues of our time, such as Iran. Despite the Iranian government's systematic brutality and the presence of American hostages in Iranian prisons, the Obama administration decided not to table a single resolution critical of Iran, nor to ask the Council to convene a special session to focus on human-rights violations in Iran. (The Council has had six special sessions on Israel alone.)

Administration apologists had plenty of excuses. They whined that they didn't have the votes to convene a special session; and even if they did, they were still short the votes to guarantee a robust resolution critical of Iran and they were concerned that a failure would diminish the Council's credibility. For many years at the previous UN Human Rights Commission, the U.S. put forward a resolution condemning China — which never passed — as a matter of principle. For this administration, however, the reputation of the UN is an end in itself.

American diplomats also claimed they put forward no resolution and called for no special session because it was up to the Europeans to take the lead on Iran. Perceived European "neutrality" would garner more support. In turn, the Europeans (worried about their lucrative contracts with Iran) claimed that the U.S. should take the lead.

The most widely trumpeted American (and European) excuse for going soft on Iran was that any attempt to criticize the country would prompt a wave of sympathy that would improve Iran's chances of becoming a Council member. Council elections are scheduled for May, and American diplomats fretted that the successful election of candidate Iran would harm the Council's credentials. Since such human-rights role models as Angola, Cuba, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia are already members of the Council (and come May, Libya is a shoo-in, because the slate of African states has been fixed), the idea of preserving membership quality on the Council is a very bad joke.

The administration's foot-in-mouth foray into the Human Rights Council also became evident when the Council adopted a resolution on the defamation of religions. Hoping further to ingratiate itself with the "Muslim world," Obama diplomats at the last Council meeting in September co-sponsored a resolution on freedom of expression with Egypt, a country which doesn't have freedom of expression. In order to win Egyptian support, U.S. negotiators stomached references to "special duties and responsibilities" on the exercise of free speech and "voluntary codes of ethical conduct" on the media. In return, Egypt took the very first opportunity at this Council session to throw the free-speech façade overboard. It championed a resolution attacking freedom of expression in the name of defending Islam from "defamation." The resolution is entitled the defamation of religions, but Islam is the only religion the Council deemed worthy of mention.

In a final dismal spectacle, the only resolution the administration did put forward over the entire four-week meeting crashed and burned. The American proposal had been designed to forestall efforts by Islamic states to write free-speech curbs into international law. The battle is over support for drafting so-called complementary standards — which claim to complement existing laws combating racism and related intolerance but which in fact will undermine them. For example, in this context Algeria has advocated rewriting the definition of anti-semitism, arguing that complementary standards should "end impunity" for "anti-Semitic policies directed against people of Arab descent in particular and extended by association to Muslims worldwide."

When Obama's representatives learned that African and Asian states vehemently objected to their resolution on the work of the committee on complementary standards, they simply withdrew it. Not only did they withdraw it, they then sought to manufacture the appearance of harmony by throwing American support behind the rival African resolution, which pushed the process of drafting complementary standards forward. Even the European Union balked and refused to support the African text.

Many in the corridors of the Council meeting mistakenly believe that the Obama contingent is some combination of naïve, idyllic, weak, and pathetic. I give the president more credit than that. The Council's record was clear when Obama decided to join it, and any first grader is capable of doing the math that proves the inability of any Western government to change the Council's course. Contributing to an aura of credibility surrounding this twisted and incorrigible institution is, therefore, a solid piece of evidence of President Obama's priorities — good relations with the Muslim world, poor relations with the state of Israel, and human rights be damned.

EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. Contact EYE on the UN by email at list@eyeontheun.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Bruce Ticker, March 28, 2010.


Contact Bruce Ticker by email at bruce@nycat.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 28, 2010.

Dear friends, please, during Pesach, unless it is very urgent, refrain from sending me messages. As I will be away from my computer over much of the holiday, I will be inundated with messages otherwise.


The Arab League is currently holding a summit meeting in Libya. Yesterday, head of the League, Amr Moussa, told those gathered that:

"We must prepare for the possibility that the peace process will be a complete failure. This is the time to stand up to Israel. We must find alternative options, because the situation appears to have reached a turning point."

What do you imagine are the "alternative options" that are being considered?


I place responsibility for this situation solidly and firmly on Obama. The Arabs are taking their lead from him. They see us as weakened, and Obama as firmly on their side.


Abbas, who also spoke, said there would be no peace agreement unless we agreed to end the occupation of "Palestinian land" including in "east" Jerusalem.

He added that the conflict here could ignite the entire region, and that he would not participate even in indirect talks if we did not first stop settlement activity, by which he means also in Jerusalem.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was at the summit as well, spoke of the Israeli "violation" of Muslim holy sites, which he termed unacceptable.

And UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon? Why, he was there too. He urged that negotiations be given a try, with the goal of achieving a final solution within two years. Yet, what did he say?

"I am aware that regional confidence in the Israeli Government is very low, but there is no alternative to getting the parties to the negotiating table and testing their commitment."

"Very low confidence" in us? "Testing our commitment"? Let this be a lesson — please G-d, the final lesson — for all those here who have imagined that by making concessions we might earn good will.

Ban also referred, once again, to the "settlements" as "illegal," which they most decidedly are not. Not by any yardstick. Not according to relevant UN Security Council resolutions, or Oslo, or the Roadmap. But why should the head of the UN let mere facts stand in the way of his expressed sympathy for the Palestinian Arab "cause."?


While the Arab League may not go there yet — especially in light of Ban's urging — today leaders from Syria and Libya, Assad and Kaddafi, urged Abbas to abandon talks and return to violence.


This horrific situation is simply not rational. Please note:

[] None of the land being claimed by the Palestinian Arabs was ever "theirs." It was Mandate land, intended for a Jewish homeland, which fell into Jordanian (Jordanian — not Palestinian Arab) hands in 1949, following our War of Independence, and then was acquired by Israel in 1967, after the Six Day War.

[] UN Security Council resolution 242, after the Six Day war, does not require us to return to the Green Line, and does NOT mention either a Palestinian people or a Palestinian state.

[] We have been building in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line for many years, just as we have been doing construction in our communities in Judea and Samaria. This never stopped negotiations between Israel and the PLO/PA. Not until now, just when we have a prime minister who conceded more than any prime minister ever conceded before — with a 10 month freeze in the communities.

[] It has been pointed out, and pointed out, that the Palestinian Arabs do not want a "two-state solution," but rather to destroy us. They could have had their state several times over, if that was what they wanted. Arabs recognize strength and are contemptuous of concessions that they perceive to be weakness. Right now, especially with Obama at our throat, they see an opportunity to move on us.

The only proper response is strength and unity from our side.


I would like to recommend the Friday column by JPost editor David Horovitz. David frequently tilts left and more often than not I disagree with him these days. But now even David is saying that the position that the Obama administration has embraced, with regard to a readiness by Abbas to lead the Palestinians on a path to peace, is simply unfathomable to Netanyahu and his government.

"...2009 came and went without any direct Israeli-Palestinian talks — the first such barren year in 17, as an Israeli veteran of past peacemaking dialogues with the Palestinians observed here this week. At the rate we're all going, he went on, 2010, at the very best, will be no more productive.

"In fact, it looks certain to be a whole lot worse than that."


One IDF officer, Major Eliraz Peretz, 32 from Eli, and an IDF soldier, Staff Sergeant Ilan Sabyatkovski, 21, from Rishon LeZion — both of the Golani brigade — were killed on Friday afternoon in an exchange of fire with terrorists who were planting explosives along the security fence in the southern Gaza Strip.

Major Peretz, who leaves a wife and four children, was the second in his family to die for Israel: His older brother Uriel died in a battle with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 1998. His mother, weeping during the funeral at Har Herzl this morning, said that her sons fell so that "the entire nation of Israel can live safely here."

Maj. Eliraz Peretz of blessed memory

Such is the courage of the Israeli people.


The good news: Two-thirds of the US House of Representatives (totaling 327 Congresspersons) has signed a letter to Secretary of State Clinton, protesting the strong-arm tactics of the government being used against Israel.

This must be having some effect, for now key Obama advisor David Axelrod has told CNN that the president did not give Netanyahu a cold shoulder (I would add: even if he walked away without dining with him, and did not permit a photo op, and did not release a joint statement). Axelrod's spin: "It was a working meeting among friends..."


As we approach Seder Night now, I close with this message: We shall persevere.

As a rabbi said at one of the shiurim (lessons) I attended yesterday: It is a matter of emunah (faith).

If someone had come into Auschwitz, he said, and told the people there that Israel would be founded as a modern state, and have the world's second best air force, and do incredible advancements in health, the people would have scoffed furiously. But, against all the odds, all of this has come to pass.

We cannot respond only in terms of what seems to be, but in terms of what we know and believe will be, with the help of the Almighty.

And we must work to that end. Arlene Kushner is Senior Analyst for the Center for Near East Policy Research in Jerusalem. Contact her at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, March 27, 2010.

We are the Secular Christians for Zion (SC4Z) and we are the majority, silent no more. We support the Patriots of Israel. We say: Restore Jewish Palestine from the ocean to the sea the way settled international law has already established it should be — thereafter confirmed by the Treaty of Ghent (ca. 1920)[1]

Here is our take on U.S. — Israel relations:

Peace has nothing to do with it ...

The so-called "peace" the arabs are now pretending to (want) for a passing minute has NOTHING to do with Israel's entirely proper announcement that more units shall be built for Jews in the Jewish capital of Jerusalem.

However, arab operatives embedded within Reuters have shaped the news in order to fashion an entire fiction: that if Jews build on their own land in their capital this will "impede" the the (faux) peace process. This position is patently absurd.

No foreign state, no propaganda machine, no news-operative, has the right to order Israel around, and Israel will be walking on very thin ice if it allows another state to meddle into its affairs — internal or external.

This peace-fiction is being force-fed to international media in order to conceal the arabs' true objective: to use BHO to bully Israel into agreeing to surrender even more of its autonomy over its own land. That's what the arabs and Saudi Arabia really want from Israel: submission to insults and calumnies and a corresponding voluntary diminution on the part of Israel of its sovereign powers as a nation. If Israel bends to this rotten scheme, and surrenders its autonomy over its land, or if it obeys a demand to refrain from the exercise of its sovereign rights, then it is just a matter of time before foreign interests will engage in even stronger attempts to bully Israel and its weak, uninformed, and quite possibly ignorant leadership into first creating and then bowing to a precedent for the piecing-away of all of Israel until there will be nothing left of Israel beyond some Jewish museums emptied of Jews. This precedent can spread like a virus and can even lead to the Balkanization of the United States and further dismantling of the UK and its possessions and colonies.

We expect BHO to threaten to arm Israel's antagonists — who for the past several decades have been primed from birth to kill non-Muslims mercilessly. Muslims are executing Christians in Egypt; they are slaughtering entire villages in the Sudan the same way Abdullah the First, the founder of Saudi Arabia, slaughtered Arab tribes who stood in his way.

The arabs first demonize their victims then use their oil funds to persuade others to do the same, finally, they kill their targets the same way the Islamics wiped out entire villages in Algeria. Kofi Annan clapped his hands for joy over this butchery, declaring that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. (Perhaps this disgusting proclamation will in turn seal the fate of his homeland, Ghana.) You know who these arabs are and you know how their operate: They are the ones who kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and tore them to pieces while alive and then smeared their victim's blood on their hands to show them to the arab celebrants — a bloody, howling crowd of arab invaders who pretend to be what they never were: "palestinians." These are the pretenders to Israel's land and these are the arabs Jimmy Carter nurtures and incites.

These same arabs apparently have wooed their way into BHO's heart such that BHO wants to plant them inside Israel and toward that end he has uttered the must ridiculous and insulting comments about a US ally, Israel. Other nations, other potential US allies, will remember this chicanery and tell themselves what a fickle ally the US can be. This underhanded, absurd scheme to dismantle Israel and fill it with arabs ejected from their native lands began in full force with the Carter administration. Did anyone hear a word out of Jimmy Carter rejecting murder and mayhem in the name of Allah? The answer is NO! Not a word of reproach. Which ought to tell you what Saudi gifts can buy.

Stand strong, Israel. You have nowhere to go but the grave should you be persuaded to surrender even so much as an inch of your land. And yes, it has always been your land — from the ocean to the sea. — Yasser Arafat knew this and that is precisely why this Egyptian-born terrorist engaged in such diabolically clever semantics and reveals his underlying motive for concocting his cunning plots —in order to persuade Israel's uneducated and uninformed and oftimes ridiculous leadership to give up Israel's lands to him.

As for the UK — their banks are broke, worse than the US, and the UK government would love to be on the receiving end of some huge heaps of Saudi nourishment. Which would give the Brit Foreign Office a plausible motive to frame Israel for the recent death of Hamas terrorist chieftain.

[1] The Legal Foundation of the Borders of Israel under International Law. Author: Prof. Howard Grief; available at www.amazon.com

Viva Israel from the SC4Z
Paul la Demain

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

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


45% of the population is poor, earning less than $1 a day. 23.5 percent of the population lives in poverty. [Both figures were in the same news brief, and the total population figure was not cited.]

46% lack sufficient food.

12 million are homeless. 1.5 million live in cemeteries.

48 million Egyptians live in 1109 slums without economic or social services.

A fourth of Egyptians have high blood pressure. 9 million have hepatitis C.

Half the government officials would accept bribes. The government squanders hundreds of millions of Egyptian pounds by corruption and mismanagement

The Land Center for Human Rights said it got those figures from official sources. The Center predicts a social explosion (IMRA, 3/25 from Egyptian Gazette).

Signs of impending explosion were not observed. Social upheaval and political collapse sometimes erupt unexpectedly. Will the people rise up? Will they turn to the Moslem Brotherhood? What then would happen to the huge Egyptian military that the U.S. financed rather than help Egypt solve its social problems, if that even were possible?


Haaretz reports on initial Cabinet meetings about the U.S.-Israel stances on Jerusalem.

"In closed talks, Netanyahu clarified that he has no intention of breaking up his right wing coalition to form a more moderate centrist alliance, despite continuing pressure from the United States for a compromise over Israeli building in east Jerusalem."

"The prime minister has faced repeated demands from his hard line partners in government to refuse any compromise on Jewish building in all parts of the city." PM Netanyahu asserted that he allows Jewish building in Jerusalem not because his coalition partners press him to. He said he wants to do it, as have all the Prime Ministers before him [since the city was reunited]. (IMRA, 3/26).

The quotations are from Haaretz, a Far Left daily. It refers to Far Left parties as "moderate" when they favor extreme appeasement of the existential Arab enemies and whose defeatist psychology and policy led to disastrous losses of war and withdrawal. The newspaper calls the coalition partners "hard line" for not wanting to cede Israel's holiest cites to an enemy that would bar Jews from them and whose doctrine is to conquer, not make peace.

The reporters do not acknowledge that one of the coalition partners is the Far Left Labor Party. The paper uses political labels as prejudicial, loaded terms. It knows that "moderate" sounds better than "hard line." But it never applies the "hard-line" label to the Arabs, who are intransigent and want it all. Is that fair?

Not only are the Arabs intransigent, but so, really, is the Obama administration. Like the State Dept. in general, the Administration keeps demanding more and more from Israel and nothing from the Arabs, who incite people to violence and who tell them they are the rightful masters of Israel. The U.S. does not, contrary to what Haaretz states, ask for a compromise. After every Israeli concession, the U.S., in tandem with the Arab side, demands more and more. Its full demands amount to total Israeli concession and no end to terrorism and war.

The distorted view of "compromise" is like the U.S. way of mediating. The State Dept. used to declare that it was trying to "bridge the gap" between Israel and the Arabs. But it builds that bridge only from the Israeli side. It keeps adding sections (i.e., concessions) reaching from Israel, none from the Arab side. That is not "bridging the gap," that is babying and bullying Israel along to surrender.


Israeli PM Netanyahu has returned to Israel to work out with his inner Cabinet a reply to U.S. demands.

American officials said that their goal was not to make the government collapse, but that without a real reduction in Jewish building in East Jerusalem, peace talks with the Palestinians would be impaired." (Ethan Bronner, New York Times, 3/26, A4.) The newspaper put it as a matter of politics for Netanyahu. Why not a matter of principle, as he puts it? What is this "Arab East Jerusalem," which had a Jewish majority for more than 150 years, except the brief period under Jordanian conquest, and has a Jewish majority now? What sense is there to divide a city that when divided before let the Arabs shoot into the Jewish sector?

The Arab side started the various wars and resorted to terrorism from before Israeli acquisition of the disputed Territories, before all the wars, and before Jewish sovereignty, primarily for religious reasons, partly for imperialist reasons. Some Arab groups made peace with Israel but violated their agreements. The Palestinian Authority continues to preach the murder of Jews and the conquest of Israel by war and negotiation. So which side does the Obama administration demand show good faith in negotiations? The Arab side. The Administration is on their side.

People not in government or media might ask, why is it up to Jews to reduce building, and not Arabs before negotiations? Why doesn't the Administration demand that the Arabs simply negotiate without preconditions? Why does the U.S. continue to arm the Palestinian Authority that preaches conquest and honors terrorists, and snub Israel, whose Prime Minister is ready to negotiate? Leave it to negotiations to determine who may build where.


"In the past year, Hamas authorities announced that they have managed to uncover dozens of 'collaborators' in the Gaza Strip, some of whom had been directly and indirectly responsible for the killing of Palestinian gunmen and civilians."

"Some of the alleged informants were also accused of passing on information to the Palestinian Authority leadership and security forces in the West Bank during Operation Cast Lead more than a year ago."

Hamas announced that it will execute some "collaborators" with Israel. It criticized non-Hamas organizations that fire rockets into Israel as "suspicious elements." It suspects them of being Israeli agents. Agents? Hamas accuses them of seeking to provoke an Israeli military incursion. On the other hand, Hamas denies that it arrests "resistance" militiamen who fire rockets into Israel.

Some recent bombings in Gaza, Hamas attributes to youths following a certain ideology or having personal disputes. Local journalists says that Radical Muslim ideology tries to shut down hair salons and cafes [the way the Taliban do]. Hamas is trying to curb this tendency toward anarchy (IMRA, 3/26).

The inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Hamas statements, beset with its propaganda line, make it difficult to report what really is happening in Gaza. A standard Arab tactic is to blame its domestic problems on outside Israeli interference and to accuse rivals of being Zionist agents. On the other hand, Israel does have agents among Gazans, who report against terrorism. If Hamas were not terrorist and aggressive, there would be little problem with Israel.

Arafat and Abbas have tried to get Israel into a wider war with the Arab world. Hamas' Radical Muslim rivals in Gaza may be trying to do that. Even if they were not, they believe only in fighting, whereas Hamas believes in building up forces for a fight and may be taking orders from Iran about when to fight.


Mainstream Israeli media described the meetings between Israeli PM Netanyahu and President Obama and other U.S. officials as a "failure."

Author Jackson Diehl observes that the U.S. is treating Israel as an unsavory Third World dictatorship to be kept at arms length. He said that after Obama was so insulting and hostile to Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the EU must feel they cannot be more accommodating to Israel than the U.S..

The Washington Post described the U.S.-Israeli rift as "U.S.-engineered." (Arutz-7, 3/26)

The Post is being frank. Commendable. It is unfortunate but wise of Americans to become skeptical about the ethics and posturing of their own government.

Mr. Diehl might have added the irony of the Obama administration treating unsavory, Second and Third World dictatorships with deference or without indignation.

What makes the U.S.-Israel meetings a failure? That the U.S. does not get what it demands, at least not yet? That would depend on whose point of view and whether the U.S. demands were justified. Having resisted unilateral, one-sided U.S. demands, and keeping his capital city intact, Netanyahu made a certain success of the meetings. David escaped Goliath. His resistance to pressure, coercive pressure, would be seen as a greater success if he persuaded the Administration. However, being bound by a rigid ideology and linked with advisers and State Dept. officials who traditionally and relentlessly are anti-Zionist, the Administration cannot be persuaded. Unfortunately, Administration ideology keeps it from a consistent approach to fighting terrorism. Its ideology therefore harms U.S. national security.


Illegal aliens from Sudan and Eritrea pass through Egypt and into Israel. Many of them move into southern Tel Aviv neighborhoods. They have produced a crime wave there. Some assault females and others make explicitly antisemitic attacks. There are accusations that they also take jobs from Israelis.

The Jews of those neighborhoods have formed an organization to work against illegal immigration. Most liberals in Tel Aviv live in other parts of the city. They seem oblivious to the problem. They do not want illegal immigrants returned. The new organization suggests that they then open their homes to the illegal aliens and relieve the Jews in the southern neighborhoods of the problem (Arutz-7, 3/26)

In New York City, we used to have "limousine liberals," who forced racial integration in public schools, not that those schools had deliberately segregated, and sent their own children to private schools not integrated. Their policy helped destroy the good public school system I had attended. They went too far and did too little preparation and allotted inadequate funding for their social engineering.

The central government of Israel is planning a fence between Israel and the Sinai, so fewer people can sneak in. Terrorists might be among the infiltrators.


Apparently the U.S. is making additional demands of Israel, in behalf of the Arabs.

The U.S. secretly is pressing Kadima Party head, Tsipi Livni, to join the Israeli coalition.

It is demanding that Israel turn over the Abu Dis area, abutting Jerusalem, for the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) to turn into its capital. The U.S. supposedly wants to set a 2-year deadline for negotiation, at the conclusion of which, the P.A. would become sovereign. The U.S. also demands that Israel release 2,000 convicted terrorists.

The U.S. also is demanding that Israel negotiate with Syria. Then the U.S. line goes, there could be a solid Arab alliance against Iran. Supposedly, the U.S. promises that then it would destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

The P.A. has asked Israel to turn over part of the Jordan Valley, alongside the Dead Sea, for the P.A. to build a resort in. The Jordan Valley is key to Israel border defense against Arab invasion from the east (IMRA, 3/26).

Baring the whole U.S. strategy provides further evidence that the recent U.S.-Israel rift was engineered by the U.S., primarily in order to get Israeli concessions along the way to the full U.S. scheme for Israel.

Apparently, suspicions that I felt there was not enough evidence to report, are true, that the U.S. is trying to dilute if not destroy the Netanyahu regime.

In setting a deadline for negotiations, the U.S. is enabling the most adamant and the imperialist side to procrastinate, and get statehood without an agreement and without ever having abandoned its doctrine of religious conquest and its practice of inciting to bigotry and honoring terrorists. Since it honors them, U.S. claims that the P.A. is fighting terrorism sound hollow. It would not incarcerate people whom it honors.

One can surmise that in demanding Israeli negotiations with Syria, which is adamant about acquiring the Golan, from which it committed aggression against Israel, the U.S. is trying to meet Syrian demands. Otherwise, how else can it claim to be getting Syrian cooperation against Iran? But the Golan, aside from being a part of the Jewish homeland and properly incorporated into Israel, provides Israel with secure borders on the north.

As a result of the U.S. scheme, Israel would have no secure borders. So, an Arab alliance is indeed likely, but not to attack Iran, but finally to conquer Israel. The State Dept. will have succeeded in its decades-old goal of getting Israel to surrender enough strategic area so that the Arabs can deliver the final coup-de-tete and the U.S. would be thought to have clean hands.

The U.S. theory that it can build an alliance against Iran only by getting Israel to make such concessions to the Arabs never stood up to analysis. It was not logical that the Arabs would not cooperate against Iran because they didn't like Israel. Iran threatened their existence, but Israel did not. Even if Israel did, it would not be logical for the Arabs to fail to help remove the menace from Iran, because of some other threat. Neither does it make sense that the U.S. particularly needs the Arabs for a mission to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. Nor is it clear that our President, raised as a Muslim, is likely to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities even if the Arabs approved of his doing so.

The U.S. theory basically has been disproved by reports that the Arabs have asked Israel to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. The Arabs did not make their plea conditional. One may suppose that since they asked Israel to raid Iran, they must have asked the U.S. to do so. Then why would the U.S. claim to be refraining from such a raid in order to get Arabs' approval by sacrificing Israeli national security to them? The logical answer is that the U.S. is dissembling, and is doing so in order to blackmail Israel for concessions that would get it destroyed. That is the so-called peace process!

When President Bush ordered a program to change the Iranian regime, the State Dept. thwarted him. Now it is trying to change the Israeli regime that does not threaten U.S. security.


UNICEF replied to a Palestinian Media Watch complaint about its subsidy of PYALARA, an NGO in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). UNICEF has been donating $100,000 a year to PYALARA for 10 years.

UNICEF did not know of PYALARA's use of the UNICEF logo on a document that advocates violence against Israel and the youth organization's role in similar advocacy on TV. PYALARA had agreed to ask UNICEF for approval if it did use the logo. No approval was requested. UNICEF does not approve. UNICEF further states that in future, it would review any further association with PYALARA very carefully (IMRA, 3/26).

One of my readers declared that my sources, such as PMW and NGO Monitor are biased. UNICEF's reply validates the substance of PMW's report in this instance. This report shows the violent and deceitful practices of the Palestinian Arab youth group. Such groups, like the P.A., itself, play "fast and loose" with their obligations and contradict their charters that they use to elicit donations from well-meaning donors. Such behavior should alert Westerners to be skeptical about the Palestinian Arab narrative.


The Toronto District School Board is not anti-Israel. It recently banned the anti-Israel hate-fest, called "Israel Apartheid Week," from its schools. Nevertheless, vicious anti-Israel propaganda has been insinuated into Toronto schools.

The Ontario Library Association and some teachers initiated inclusion of a book, The Shepherd's Granddaughter, on the recommended reading list for grades 7 and 8. A parent brought to the attention of B'nai B'rith Canada that the work of fiction is one-sided and defames the Jewish state.

B'nai B'rith Canada advised the Ontario Minister of Education of the consequences of such propaganda. "This is not just a matter of political differences with Israeli policy. A young girl, who admitted to having Jewish friends, recently reviewed The Shepherd's Granddaughter on a popular book-review website and stated that reading this book made her want to 'go to the West Bank and kill Israelis.' Clearly, this propaganda has no place in our classrooms and is against Canadian values."

"In 2006, similar concerns were raised about another anti-Israel book approved by various school boards titled Three Wishes: Palestinian and Israeli Children Speak. Both books are published by Groundwood Books (House of Anansi Press)." (IMRA, 3/20).

This is not a matter of book censorship. Totalitarian ideologues are taking advantage of children. They are presenting false and misleading propaganda against Candian public school goals, not giving children the facts, not letting them hear the other side, and not acknowledging what they are doing.

Librarians can perform a great civic duty, but some years ago, the American association of librarians became ideological in favor of the Palestinian Arabs. Perhaps liberals are going over the deep end into totalitarian values as formerly some did into fellow-traveling for the Soviets. Other liberals retained genuine liberal values and were anti-Soviet and pro-American.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Solly Ganor, March 27, 2010.

Dear Family and Friends,

The story of the 'Seder in Dachau' is part of our program of 'Bearing Witness'. It is specially important today when A 'New Generation' of enemies are determided once more to Annihilate us. 'But now we finally have the means 'to help G-D to save us from their hands'.

Soon there won't be any of us left to bear witness to the Holocaust, therefore as much as it pains us we have to tell our stories for the future generations to fully understand the events of the Holocaust. The story 'Passover in Dachau', does not intend to tell story of the horrors we endured, but of the Jewish faith, spirit and strength that helped us survive two thousand years of persecution and prejudice. It tells of a man who made a difference even while we dwelt in the hell of the Nazis.

I wish you a Happy Kosher Passover. When it comes to Pesach I always remember the seder in Dachau and I stop worrying about Obamah. We survived worse enemies.

Chag Sameach,
Solly Ganor


One of the touchy subjects among the Jewish prisoners at Nazi concentration camps was the role of G-D at these camps of horror. Some unable to believe that G-D would allow such gruesome deeds to take place, simply lost their faith in him. But some never lost their faith no matter what they witnessed and one of them I will never forget was the man we called " Rebbe". I never found out his real name but his absolute belief and devotion to G-D made us wonder.

Many thought that the "Rebbe" was not all there. Still, whatever we thought of him, he gave us a spark of hope when we needed it most. At that time it was obvious that the Nazis were losing the war, but we were at the end of our endurance mentally and physically. To survive we needed spiritual strength. The "Rebbe" kept on reminding us that the Jewish people survived two thousand years of endless persecutions while most of our old enemies disappeared. And now we were witnessing the defeat of our arch enemy, Hitler and his Nazis. Somehow we had to find the strength to survive and see their downfall.

This Pesach story is dedicated to the "Rebbe" who together with many of us who attended his Pesach Seder and survived the Holocaust. Soon after the liberation most of the survivors left for Israel, but some went to the States and many other countries. I never found out what happened to the "Rebbe" and I never saw him again. But whenever Purim and Pesach comes around I always remember his "Purim Spiel" and the "Seder in Dachau."

Sixty-five years ago, towards the end of March, 1945, we held a Passover Seder in Dachau, the notorious Nazi concentration camp. We were half starved, barely able to walk, yet we kept the tradition of the Passover Sedder held by the "Rebbe", most of us considered "meshuge".

Of course, it was not a real Seder; it was just a symbolic Seder, yet those of us who participated in it felt a tremendous spiritual uplift that gave us enough strength to continue.

'Passover in Dachau,' is not a story of the horrors we endured, but a story of Jewish faith, spirit, strength and stamina that has helped us survive two thousand years of persecution and prejudice. It tells of a man who made a difference even while we dwelt in the Nazi hell. We only knew him as the "Rebbe" and that he came to us from the Lodz Ghetto, through Auschwitz.

Soon there won't be any of us left to bear witness to the murder of the Jews of Europe; therefore, as painful as it may be, we have to tell our stories so that future generations will fully understand the events of the Holocaust.

Six million is a big number. I have heard many say that it is a number beyond comprehension. It is only through our individual stories that the emotional impact of the Holocaust can be realized. It is our duty to bear witness. And that is what this story is all about.

The Passover Seder in Dachau.
March 27, 1945

About sixty miles southwest of Munich, the capital city of Bavaria, lies a picturesque little town called Utting, situated on the banks of a small lake called Amersee. Today, it is a well-known summer resort.

Before the Nazi era, the town was known as an artists' town where some well-known musicians, poets and artists lived. I was told that Kurt Weil, the famous composer lived there before he was forced to flee for his life to the United States. Who could have imagined that in the midst of all that beauty the Nazis would establish a concentration camp, part of the satellite camps of the notorious concentration camp of Dachau? To us it was known as Lager X, Utting.

I was seventeen years old, when in July 1944, they brought me here from Lithuania. I was to become a Jewish slave laborer in a factory that produced concrete parts for the nearby site of a huge underground factory which was under construction. The factory was to produce the fighter jet plane known as the Messerschmit M-62. Many of my friends worked and died on that construction site, which was known as "Moll", or Landsberg Lager. Managed to keep a small diary while we were there.

Utting, August 1945

It was a warm day in August, with a cool breeze blowing from a nearby lake. Later we found out that the name of the lake was Amersee, and the camp they took us to was near a small town called Utting.

As we marched down the small roads and byways of this beautiful countryside, we almost forgot that we were Jewish prisoners condemned to extermination by Hitler.

"How could so much evil dwell amidst so much beauty?" I wondered.

I tried to imagine that I was a tourist, and for lunch Father would take me to a fancy hotel where we would eat our fill of the most gorgeous meats, poultry, baked potatoes, and white rolls. Soft, round white rolls that would melt in my mouth. These images only depressed me and I thought I'd better keep my wits about me. As usual, I kept my eyes open for opportunities in this new place. I knew that the first day in the camp was crucial to getting work where one could survive and what is more important, with an opportunity to steal food. After a short walk, we were put on a local train that brought us to our destination, Lager X, an outer camp of Dachau. Here, we were received by SS guards who didn't seem as threatening as the ones in Stutthof. They led us into a wooded area, in the middle of which was a large clearing. In the clearing, we saw the camp; our final destination until the end of the war, for better or for worse.

I will skip eight months of the horrors, beatings and starvation we suffered in that camp. Many of us died. My book, 'Light One Candle,' published in English, German and Japanese, gives a full description of those events.

I will concentrate on a part of my story that could not be included in the published manuscript due to limited space. This story is about Passover in Lager X.

The Rebbe

Around the middle of March, 1945, we suddenly saw small planes with blue stars on their wings flying low over our heads. They machine-gunned everything that was moving. The German guards and foremen scattered in all directions.

We stood as if we were petrified, gaping at them. We didn't care if they hit us as long as they killed some of our torturers. The planes were a total and exciting surprise to us. During the previous eight-months, we had only seen huge bombers flying high in the sky, probably towards Munich and other German towns.

Gans, the 'Strategist,' said that these were American fighter planes, and the fact that we saw them for the first time in our area, flying so low, indicated that the front was coming nearer. That same evening the "Rebbe" came to see us in our barracks. He was the same weird man from Lodz who staged the Purim party and almost got us killed by the guards.

He knew all the prayers by heart and urged us to keep the faith.

He had grown a bit thinner since the escapade of the 'Purim' party, but he seemed in better shape than most of the Jews who arrived from the Lodz Ghetto. (I described that party last year, as Purim in Dachau.)

Burgin, the head capo, gave him the job of burying the dead and he had plenty to do, as more and more of our prisoners died. It was a dreadful job, but it was better than carrying hundred pound cement sacks on your back. He called himself "Hevre Kadishe" and was known to say Kadish after every burial, which earned him our respect.

Everyone considered him weird, but he was a kind man and always smiled, which was another reason why we thought he was crazy.

We were sitting around the small round iron stove trying to warm ourselves when he came into our barracks. He smelled of the dead. We were well acquainted with that smell.

"Yidden, peisach kumt in zwelf tug un men darf baken matze," ("Jews, Passover is coming in twelve days and we have to bake matzos.")

He spoke Yiddish differently from our Lithuanian Yiddish and sometimes it was difficult to understand him.

He also had the strange habit of calling us "Yidden" and never called us by our names.

We just looked at him in astonishment.

In the last few weeks, our situation had deteriorated. The watery soup we got for lunch became even more watery, and the daily portion of bread became thin and quite often green with mold.

The German overseers showed increasing nervousness and were even crueler, beating us at every opportunity. We knew that the Allies were somewhere in Germany, but whether we could hold out till they reached our camp was doubtful.

After the incident we had with the "Rebbe" on Purim, we weren't too surprised that he would come up with another loony idea.

Then he gave us a sly look and wagged his forefinger at us.

"Let me tell you, Yidden, we shall soon celebrate not only 'Itzios Mizraim' but also 'Iztios Deitschland.'" He said this and gave a short high pitched laugh. ("We shall soon celebrate not only the exodus from Egypt, but also the exodus from Germany.")

"From your mouth to G-d's ears, but how on earth do you know that Pesach is in twelve days?" my father asked in surprise.

"I know because it is four days before the end of March!" he said triumphantly.

That didn't any make more sense to us than his precise knowledge of Jewish holidays. We hardly knew what day it was, let alone the days of our holidays.

"And to where is this exodus taking us from Germany? Shall we cross the Red Sea to the promised land?" Haim asked with derision.

"No, we shall cross the Mediterranean to the promised land, young man," he answered quietly.

We looked at each other. Perhaps his ideas were not so crazy. We all thought that if we would survive this purgatory, the only place left for us to go was Palestine.

"So, how about some flour? I will bake the matzos and make the proper blessing to make it kosher, " he said, rubbing his hands.

"For G-d's sake, Rebbe, where do you expect us to get flour? We are all starving here and you come with your crazy ideas," one of the prisoners said in an irritated voice.

"Look, if you want to have an exodus from Germany, we must have matzos," he said, stubbornly. "Or there won't be an exodus from Germany," he said, sticking up his chin.

Then he suddenly he pointed his finger at me and said, "You work in the German OT kitchen, you bring us the flour!"

I looked at him in astonishment.

My father got really mad at him.

"You want my son to risk his life to steal flour from the Germans for your Matzohs?" Father shouted at him.

"For our Matzohs," the "Rebbe" said calmly. "He is the only one who can get the flour."

I thought about the cellar in the German kitchen, where they kept the foodstuffs. It was not only under lock and key, but the cook was always hanging around. There was no way I could get into the cellar, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't bother with flour, but would steal food to help us survive.

The "Rebbe," as if sensing my thoughts, held up his hand.

"I have something that may help you get the flour," he said, and took out from under his armpit a small rag tied with a string.

He carefully untied it and took out two objects. He put it on his left palm and stuck it under my nose. I recoiled in disgust. They were two foul smelling teeth with some gold attached to them.

We were all stunned. We all knew that he buried the dead. When he saw our looks he smiled.

"It's not what you think. I didn't pull any teeth from the dead. It was Zundel who gave it to me before he died. I promised him that I would barter the teeth for flour to make matzohs for the Passover Seder. You wouldn't want me to go back on the promise I made to a dying Jew?" he said looking at us accusingly.

"Don't you understand? Pesach is the holiday of our freedom from slavery, aren't we slaves here for the Nazis? You know very well that this may be our salvation and the gate for our exodus from Germany."

To this day, I don't know how I agreed to the Rebbe's crazy idea. Religion was the last thing on our minds under the circumstances. To some extent, we blamed G-d for what happened to the Jewish people in Europe.

There was one sentence in the Haggadah that especially angered us: "In every generation our enemies rise to destroy us, but the Almighty always saves us from their hands."

He certainly was not saving any of us, including the millions of children who were murdered. Yet it was our belief and tradition that had brought us that far.

The next day, I took the gold teeth with me to the German kitchen where I was working. The cook was a mean old German who always cursed us and would beat us with his iron soup ladle. But he never really hurt us.

How should I approach him? What should I tell him? "Here are two gold teeth extracted from a dead Jew. Can you please give me some flour to bake some matzohs for Passover?" He would probably deliver me to the SS guards to be shot.

The more I thought about it, the crazier it sounded. Finally, I decided to abandon the idea.

When the cook saw me he called me over. "You can start cleaning the mess hall and then the wash room."

His tone of voice was much milder than before. I felt a difference in his voice. While he spoke to me, he kept looking at the sky. Sure enough, a squadron of American fighter planes came roaring over the roofs. I saw them wheeling down towards the railroad tracks and heard their cannons rattling, followed by loud explosions. They must have been attacking some nearby target. It was an incredible sight and made my heart leap with joy.

The cook almost fainted with fright and ran down to the cellar where the the food was stored. I ran after him, but he began shouting, " Get out! Get out! Get out! I saw you gloating when the planes came over." He screamed at me. I quickly got out of the cellar hoping he would calm down after a while. I had made a huge mistake by making him angry.

I called out to him and begged his forgiveness. "I was just frightened of the attacking planes, please forgive me," I said.

We looked at each other. I could see in his eyes that he was thinking the same thing as I, "Soon the Americans will be here."

It was then that I suddenly blurted out the story of the Passover holiday and that we needed flour to bake matzohs. It was as if the "Rebbe" had taken control of my tongue and made me say these things.

Then I slowly opened the rag the "Rebbe" had given me and extended the two gold teeth to him.

For a while he looked at me as if I had gone mad. Then I saw some recognition in his eyes.

"Is that the holiday Passover when our Lord Jesus sat with his disciples and ate the unleavened bread at the last supper? Is the unleavened bread what you Jews call matzohs?"

It was my turn to be surprised. I knew that he was an observant Catholic by the cross he wore around his neck, and I saw him cross himself several times when the American planes came over.

This was an entirely unexpected turn of events.

As children we were taught that Jesus was always connected with trouble for the Jewish people. But if Jesus helped us get the flour, it was all right with me.

I was beginning to be hopeful. He looked at the gold teeth for a while but didn't take them.

He didn't say anything more and told me to clean up the mess hall and the wash room.

Before we went back to the camp, he came out of the kitchen and gave me a small paper bag full of white flour.

"I think our Lord would want you to have matzohs for your holiday. After all he was one your people. Sometimes we forget that."

I don't know why he gave me the flour, perhaps be thought that I would say a good word for him when the Americans came, or perhaps he did it out of religious convictions. The fact was that he didn't take the gold teeth.

Whatever the reasons, the "Rebbe" had his flour and, on the small iron stove, he baked us little white wafers that reminded us vaguely of matzohs. They had small holes in them and were slightly burned.

It was on March 27, 1945, when he brought the matzohs and declared that the Passover Seder would now begin.

"Out of the seven ingredients needed to conduct the Seder, we now only have two. Matzohs and Marror, but the Almighty will understand."

"'Rebbe', where is the Marror (bitter herb) that you mentioned? " we asked him.

He looked at us. "Our lives in this camp is the Marror; it is bitter enough."

He then divided the matzah, gave each of us a piece and made us say the blessings.

"Since you are the youngest of the group, you will ask the four 'shales mah nishtana,'(the four questions)." To my surprise, I remembered most of them and sing-songed the questions with the help of the others. We did not hide the 'Afikomen' because there were no children in our camp. The children had all been sent to Auschwitz to be gassed.

We had to go to work the next day and we were hungry and dead tired, but we joined the "Rebbe" in holding some kind of a Seder. He remembered most of the Haggadah by heart; so did my father who had studied in a yeshiva when he was a boy.

Some of the other participants also knew parts of the Haggadah. Some of us joined in saying the blessings, but we were all asleep before the "Rebbe" finished chanting the Haggadah.

I vaguely remembered him singing Chad Gad Yah.

At the end, he made a short prayer in Yiddish:

"Please, forgive us, Oh Master of the Universe, for conducting such a poor Passover Seder service. But it was the best we could do, and please deliver us, Oh Lord, from the hands of our enemies who rose up, once again, in this generation to destroy us."

The Rebbe's seder had double significance for us: We all felt as if we were there at "Itzias Miszraim," and we believed the "Rebbe" that we would also be at "Itzias Daitschland."

He woke me before he left and told me, "you deserve a special blessing for bringing the flour for the Matzohs. You will be among those who will soon celebrate the exodus from Germany to the Holy Land."

I didn't tell him about my conversation with the cook and that Jesus had something to do with getting us the flour for the Matzohs. I doubt that he would have appreciated the help of Jesus.

About a month later, the war was over and we were rescued by the US army. It was May 2, 1945.

The "Rebbe" kept his promise and most of us who participated in that Seder in Dachau, survived the Holocaust and left for Israel, fulfilling his prophecy of "Itzios Daitschland, The Exodus from Germany."

Solly Ganor
Ramat Hasharon, Israel
March 27, 2010

Solly Ganor is a Holocaust survivor. Contact him by email at solganor@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Jack Cohen, March 27, 2010.

FACT — there is no city in the world that is divided. Why is that? Because it doesn't work! Cities are only divided as a result of war, such as Berlin (1945-1989) and Jerusalem (1948-1967). In a civic and ethnic sense it cannot work (the Vatican is too small to consider Rome to be divided). Many cities have large ethnic minorities or even majorities, but that doesn't mean they should be divided, such as Washington DC, that has a Black majority while it is the capital of a predominantly White country. There is no rational basis to redivide Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel and of a Palestinian State. It just won't work!

That doesn't stop the do-good liberals of trying to foist this unworkable formula on Israel, because they believe in absolute rights, so every ethnic group should get to share control over its city. Why not divide New York into ethnic boroughs, Oh!, that's right it is already divided that way, as is every American city, but that doesn't mean the city itself should be divided. What's wrong with Jerusalem, always a predominantly Jewish city, having Arab neighborhoods, it works elsewhere, while dividing the city can't work. Also, giving the eastern Arab neighborhoods to a putative Palestinian state is asking for trouble, since Hamas is growing stronger and is likely to take over and its policies require destruction of Israel, just like its sponsor Iran (would you let an ally of Iran not only on your borders but within a few km of the center of your capital city?) If you really believed that they want peace, then maybe we could take a risk, but since there is no evidence in the real world of that, it would be stupid of us to go through with it. Being stupid doesn't mean that we should commit suicide (again!).

Of course, there is the demographic argument that if we incorporate too much land, then we will have too many Arabs and Israel will eventually cease to be a Jewish State because the Arab birth-rate is higher than that of the Jews. But, this is not such a serious argument as it applies to Jerusalem. The Arabs in East Jerusalem have been incoprorated into Israel, although not as full citizens with voting rights. But, they are a minority in Jerusalem and their birth rate is coming down while that of the Israelis in general has been going up (increasing size of Orthodox families).

Another liberal canard is that if the Arab-Israel conflict is settled then other conflicts will be quickly resolved. That is nonsense. Iran will want to destroy Israel just as much if there is peace with a Palestinian entity as if there is no peace. In fact, any Palestinain entity that made peace with Israel would itself become the target of Iranian ire, and would be attacked from inside by Hamas, Iran's Palestinian proxy. That is one very good reason why (illegal) Pres. Abbas doesn't want to have constructive negotiations with Israel and why he is finding excuses, (gifted to him by the Americans) to avoid restarting talks. Preconditions are a way to prevent talks going ahead, whether direct, indirect, proximal or remote. It seems to me that the US is conpletely misreading the current situation, since the Palestinians are completely recalcitrant and have shown no sign of being willing to compromise. If they ever change their tune (perhaps after Iran is taken down) then we could really negotiate with them. But, until then, no freeze and no division of Jerusalem.

Contact Jack Cohen at jcohen2@bezeqint.net This essay is archived at http://www.commentfromisraelblog.blogspot.com/.

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Spyer, March 26, 2010.

Wherever departed Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh is now, he is presumably enjoying the considerable trouble the nature of his exit is causing his Israeli enemies.

The British decision to expel an unnamed Israeli diplomat following the conclusion of an investigation into the alleged use by Israel of cloned British passports in an assassination operation probably does not signal the onset of a general crisis in relations between London and Jerusalem. Still, it is not an everyday act, and the language used by the foreign secretary in announcing the expulsion was notably harsh.

This affair has so far traveled along similar lines to the last major set-to between the UK and Israel over the issue of Israeli intelligence activities overseas. In 1986, a number of forged British passports were discovered in an Israeli diplomatic pouch in West Germany. This incident was followed a year later by the apprehending of a Palestinian employed as a double agent by Israeli intelligence, together with a cache of weapons, in a northern English town. The result was the expulsion from Britain of Arie Regev, an official at the Israeli Embassy. Regev was widely regarded as the chief of the Mossad station in the UK.

Then, as now, the anger of senior British officials was real, not feigned. And the public revelations of the events meant that a response of a public nature was also inevitable. But the substantive response was a managed one. Cooperation between Israeli and British intelligence services suffered for a while. But channels of communication stayed open via Washington. Information of really crucial importance continued to be shared.

A replacement for Regev was in due course installed. After a suitable time lapse, normal cooperation was resumed.

Regarding the broader diplomatic parameters, the affair did not prevent the governments of Margaret Thatcher and her successor, John Major, from being among the most friendly to Israel in recent memory.

There is good reason to assume that this time, too, any real damage will be limited in duration and extent. The British defense establishment is known to be deeply and genuinely concerned by the Iranian nuclear program.

Cooperation in this area between the British and Israeli security services is extensive. Cooperation against the shared threat of Sunni jihadi organizations is also wide and deep.

Liaison between intelligence services takes place for the mutual benefit of the states concerned. It is likely that security professionals in Britain would be opposed to any real and lasting setback to their own activities (and the resulting danger to the security of British citizens) for the sake of a gesture of disapproval to Israel.

The presence in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and within the top echelons of the ruling British Labor Party of individuals adhering to strongly anti-Israel positions should be taken into account when gauging the nature of London's move.

The decision will have been taken at the highest level, after input from all sides. Imminent elections in the UK, the need to placate the anti-Israel Labor Left and the desire to secure British Muslim support in marginal parliamentary constituencies should be factored in when considering the harshness of the language used by the foreign secretary in announcing the expulsion.

The limited nature in substantive terms of the gesture, however, suggests that those who made the final decision were taking Britain's own diplomatic ambitions in the Middle East into account. According to Jonathan Rynhold, a specialist on British-Israeli relations at Bar-Ilan University, Britain wants to be seen as a player in the Middle East "peace process." For this to be possible, it needs to maintain cordial relations with Israel.

For a variety of reasons, according to Rynhold, the UK's standing in Israel is currently low. The failure of the British government to take action to end the use of universal jurisdiction to arrest and try Israeli officials in the UK, and the British stance on the Goldstone Report have seriously harmed Britain's potential credibility as an honest broker in the eyes of Israelis.

Many Israeli officials today describe French President Nicolas Sarkozy as the European leader regarded as most trustworthy by Jerusalem. The diplomatic status game among leading EU countries thus may also have played a role in confining the British gesture to manageable proportions.

So the expulsion of an unnamed Israeli diplomat from the London embassy should not be dismissed as merely a routine gesture. This episode casts light on the different stances and interests within the decision-making system of a major European country.

Between the strongly anti-Israel positions of powerful people in the British political and diplomatic establishments, the more pragmatic interests of defense officials, and the ambitions of political leaders, a decision was made — this time involving harsh language and limited practical import.

Israeli officials will be aiming to move on as quick as possible from the whole affair.

They will be hoping that whatever really took place on January 19, in the Al-Bustan Rotana hotel in Dubai, the ghost of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh will return no more to stir up further trouble between the Jewish state and its allies.

Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Herzliya, Israel

This article was published by the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, P.O. Box 167, Herzliya, 46150, Israel. He is archived in
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/03/ legacy-of-mahmoud-al-manhouh

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, March 26, 2010.

An Appeal to Prime Minister Netanyahu:

Bring the Bnei Menashe Home to Israel


Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu,

I am writing to you from the village of Churachandpur, in the farthest reaches of northeastern India, where I am visiting with the Bnei Menashe community as they prepare to celebrate Passover next week.

I have just returned from the Beit Shalom synagogue in the heart of town, which was crowded to overflowing for the evening Maariv service. Bnei Menashe men and women, both young and old, swayed back and forth in silent contemplation, as they turned towards Zion and softly recited the ancient Hebrew prayers.

Then, with an intensity of purpose and unshakeable concentration, those present raised their hands and covered their eyes in unison, bursting forth as one to affirm our people's most revered pledge: "Hear O Israel, the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is One."

The Bnei Menashe, or "children of Manasseh", trace their ancestry back to the tribe of Menashe, one of the Ten Lost Tribes that were exiled from the Land of Israel by the Assyrian empire more than 2,700 years ago.

Despite centuries of wandering, the Bnei Menashe clung to their Jewish heritage and preserved their traditions. They never forgot who they were or where their ancestors came from, and they nourished the dream that one day, somehow, they would manage to return.

Over the past decade, we have been blessed to bring more than 1,700 members of the community to Israel. All have undergone formal conversion by the Chief Rabbinate to remove any doubts regarding their personal status and have been granted Israeli citizenship.

But another 7,000 remain in India, anxiously awaiting their chance to make aliyah.

The time has come to put an end to their waiting.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, I appeal to you: please bring the Bnei Menashe home to the Jewish state.

Four months ago, I met with Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar and Interior Minister Eli Yishai, both of whom expressed their support for bringing the remaining members of the community to Israel.

All that is needed now is for your government to take the courageous and historic decision to reunite this lost tribe with our people.

The Bnei Menashe will be loyal citizens and good Jews. They are kind and soft-spoken, with strong family values and a deep abiding faith in the Torah. Nearly all are religiously observant, with a profound and passionate commitment to Zionism.

Only 4 percent of Bnei Menashe immigrants are reliant on social welfare benefits, which is less than half the percentage of veteran Israelis. They are hard-working and earnest people, and the arrival of thousands of them will be a true blessing for the Jewish state.

Several members of the community in Israel have received rabbinical ordination and now work in outreach, while another is a certified religious scribe whose quill has produced beautiful Scrolls of Esther.

Dozens of others have served in elite combat units such as Golani and the paratroopers, risking their lives in defense of the country.

Simply put, they strengthen us both quantitatively and qualitatively, demographically and spiritually.

Moreover, the Bnei Menashe are part of the extended Jewish family, and we owe it to them and their ancestors, as well as to ourselves, to bring them home.

According to their tradition, after their forefathers were expelled from the Land of Israel, the Bnei Menashe wandered eastward toward China before settling in what is now northeastern India, where they continued to practice a biblical form of Judaism.

This included observing the Sabbath and the laws of family purity, circumcision on the eighth day after birth, levirate marriage, and sacrificial rites tantalizingly close to those of ancient Israel.

Now scattered in dozens of communities throughout the towns and villages of the Indian states of Mizoram and Manipur, they follow Jewish law, observe the festivals, and even pray in Hebrew, turning their faces, and dreams, toward Jerusalem.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, ever since I worked for you during your previous term of office in the 1990s, I have devoted myself to this cause, investing my time, resources and energies towards helping the Bnei Menashe to return to our people.

You have always been encouraging and supportive of my efforts, and for that I am truly grateful.

Over eighteen months ago, when I met with you in your office in the Knesset shortly before the elections, you assured me that when you came to power, the Bnei Menashe would be able to make aliyah.

And so, Prime Minister Netanyahu, I turn to you now from the pages of this newspaper, and ask you to intervene.

You have a chance to make history and to bring the exile of the Bnei Menashe to a remarkable conclusion.

As we prepare to celebrate Passover and our ancestors' redemption, nothing could be more fitting than to pass a cabinet decision to open the door for their return.

I know that Israel is beset with problems, and that your government must contend with many challenges.

But the time has come to bring this saga to an end. Manasseh's children are waiting to come home. Please heed my call, and allow them to do so, once and for all.

Michael Freund served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999. He is the Founder and Chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which assists the Bnei Menashe to return to the Jewish people. This article appeared yesterdat in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Victor Sharpe, March 26, 2010.


The essay below is a reprint of an earlier article of mine, entitled "If Obama abandons Israel, what then"? Sadly it was prophetic: I wish it were not so. Now President Obama has included in his imperial decree that there be a total freeze in the building of homes for Jews even in northern and northwestern suburbs of Jerusalem. These neighborhoods are in territory across the old 1967 armistice lines but in areas that were always considered part of the Jewish state if and when there would be a true and lasting peace agreement established between Israel and the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians: A prospect that is frankly unattainable so long as Islam dictates the policies of the Arab enemy.

I realize that there are those — Jews and Christians — who still believe in the euphemisms of 'land for peace' and the 'two state solution.' I most emphatically do not. Indeed, after the Sinai was given back to Egypt in return for an ice cold peace, and the southern Lebanon security strip was given back to Lebanon but immediately filled with Hezbollah, the only land since then to be required to be given away in return for 'peace' will come from parts of the territorial, spiritual and patrimonial heritage of the Jewish people. A child will know that there will still never be peace. Similarly, the two state solution will create an Arab terror state carved out of biblical Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank), an Arab state that has never existed in all of recorded history.

The only two state solution, if Israel is to survive, must be between Jordan, east of the River Jordan and Israel, west of the River Jordan. And even then, Israel gives away its biblical land of Gilead in northwestern Jordan; the patrimony of the tribe of Manasseh. And for those who argue that there is an Arab demographic bomb if Israel does not separate itself from the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, I would respectfully recommend you to the many population facts, not myths, found in the enlightening and persuasive articles penned by Israeli Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger.

This original article, therefore, did not refer to the new and unconscionable demands the president has arbitrarily imposed upon the Jewish state within its capital city, Jerusalem — emboldened demands which have come about because of disastrous territorial concessions made by earlier Israeli governments. But the article's conclusions are more valid than ever and vital to consider when the unthinkable looms ever closer.

This is the time when we celebrate Passover, the great religious festival of freedom. All who love and cherish freedom for the reconstituted State of Israel must rally now to its support and protection for, as the great sage, Rabbi Hillel, said: "If not now, when?"

Consider, also, that if Obama and the world pressures Israel into abandoning parts of Jerusalem, the age old Jewish prayer of yearning at Passover: 'Next year in Jerusalem' will have to be changed to 'Next year in West Jerusalem.'

Shabbat Shalom and Chag Sameach, (A truly meaningful and fulfilling Passover celebration)

And for my Christian Zionist friends: May you have a most meaningful and fulfilling Easter celebration



August 15, 2005, began as a day of infamy. It ushered in a great tribulation for the Jewish state, but one forced upon it by its very own Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon.

It began one day after the annual commemoration of the saddest day in the Jewish calendar, Tisha B' Av, the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av when, according to tradition, both Temples in Jerusalem were destroyed; the first one by the Babylonians in 586 BC and the second by the Romans in 70 AD.

On that August day, the Jews of Gaza began to be driven from their homes by Israeli soldiers and police acting on the orders of their Prime Minister. The tragedy ended one week later, known now by its euphemism — disengagement. Its self-imposed execution ushered in a needless catastrophe for Israel and eventually led to the occupation of Gaza by Hamas through an election engineered by Condoleezza Rice.

Hamas thus came to power using a democratic tool and subsequently destroyed its rival, Fatah, in a bloody massacre; the same Hamas, which proclaims its Constitution is the Koran and implacably calls for the destruction of Israel.

Israel woke up to relentless daily barrages of sometimes scores of missiles deliberately aimed at its civilian populations in villages and towns. The little town of Sderot, in particular, became Israel's Stalingrad. Finally, after years of astonishing forbearance and thousands of incoming rockets from Gaza, Israel struck back against a cruel Islamic enemy, which gloried in using its own civilians as human shields. In the years during this Palestinian Arab aggression there were hardly any street protests anywhere.

The 2009 Gaza War, however, allowed pent up hatred of the Jewish state to be used as an excuse for vicious anti-Israel and anti-Jewish demonstrations exploding throughout Europe and the world. The snake pit for much of this venom originates now on College campuses.

After enduring hundreds of years of Christian and Moslem discrimination in exile, Jews felt that with the re-birth of their ancestral homeland, Jewish communities would no longer face the horrors of being dragged from their homes.

Ariel Sharon dealt a blow of seismic proportions to that belief. His rationale was that by disengaging from the Palestinians in Gaza it would grant Israel peace from Arab terror and end the genocidal ambitions of Palestinian Arabs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, Sharon and his deputy, Ehud Olmert, created a roadmap leading to yet more worldwide pressure.

U.S. Ambassador George Mitchell is planning to remain in Jerusalem to do one thing only. By entrapping Netanyahu and Israeli leaders, in order to coerce Israel into giving away its ancestral and biblical lands in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), he works to create for the first time in history an independent Arab state called Palestine.

Jews will not be permitted to remain in their Judean and Samarian (West Bank) homes and will be expelled. Arabs may live in Israel but Jews are forbidden to live in Palestinian Arab territories. They are to be victims of ethnic cleansing. Apartheid! Arab style.

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with her so-called dream team, is preparing to do the same as Ambassador Mitchell. Meanwhile, President Obama is reaching out to the terrorist enabling states of Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran. He is promising nearly one billion dollars to the Palestinian Authority — three hundred million for Gaza — U.S. taxpayer money that will inevitably all end up in the coffers of Hamas.

And at the Sharm el Sheikh donor conference, 70 countries will reportedly pledge 2.8 billion dollars to Gaza reconstruction even as Hamas missiles continue their renewed daily barrage on Sderot using fresh Iranian missiles supplied through Egypt.

Palestinian Arabs will never accept the existence of a Jewish state on any of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Nor are they willing to abandon their belief, indoctrinated for decades, that all of Israel is "occupied territory." Simply put, if Israel shrinks to one downtown square in Tel Aviv the Palestinian Arabs will still not be satisfied.

Imagine the unthinkable, that Israel ceases to exist; a desire that galvanizes Jew bashers everywhere into orgasmic delight. Or imagine that Israeli leaders continue to engage in further disengagements under the rubric of land for peace; a recipe for slow but certain Israeli extinction.

So what would a world without Israel be like?

For starters, the only true functioning democracy in the region will have vanished. Since there will still be autocratic Arab dictators, kings, emirs and sheikhs, corruption, over-population, and socio-economic dislocation, the unelected Arab despots will have to find a new scapegoat towards whom to deflect their population's endemic anger and despair.

Palestine, the fraudulent state that Israel haters finally foisted upon the world, will remain as underdeveloped as most other Arab states despite enormous donor sums forever falling like manna into a black hole. Saddled with the highest birthrate in the world, most Palestinian Arabs will remain unemployed because of the inability of their terrorist government to create viable institutions and infrastructures and because there will no longer be an Israel for the Palestinian Arabs to work in.

Both Jordan and Egypt will be terrified of the fatal exposure on their borders of this new Iranian and Al Qaida backed Palestinian base for worldwide terror. Not a prospect the U.S. should be happy about either.

Syria will still menace and subvert the once predominately Christian state of Lebanon and still make territorial demands upon Jordan and Palestine, which it always considered historically part of southern Syria.

Those Arab states without oil will still envy those Arab states awash with the commodity, and water, always in short supply in the Middle East, will become the most precious liquid to wage war over.

The intra-Islamic animosity between the Sunnis and the Shia will not abate but become ever more violent in civil wars, especially after the U.S. finally withdraws all its forces from Iraq, now slated by Obama for 2011. No doubt Al Qaeda and Iran will have taken note and are plotting accordingly.

Egypt will still be discriminating against its Christian Coptic minority despite endless denials. Christians will continue to endure persecution in an increasingly Arab and Moslem dominated world from Africa to Indonesia.

Hindus will still be victims of Moslem terror and the Kashmir issue will remain a flashpoint between Hindu India and Moslem Pakistan — both nuclear powers. Buddhists in Thailand will still be battling Moslem insurgents in the south of that country as will the Christians in the south of the Philippines.

Cairo, the capital of the largest and most powerful Arab state, will continue vying with Damascus and Riyadh for leadership of the Arab world's own version of the 19th century's Great Game. And all the while the menace of non-Arab Iran will loom over them all.

The ever suffering Kurds, who truly deserve an independent state of their own, will still be pressing Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Iran for such a state and those countries will still be violently denying them their national aspirations.

Iran's mullahs will still be hell-bent on developing even more Islamic nuclear bombs. Such weapons atop ever more powerful ICBMs and perhaps now located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean will inevitably threaten the West — and Israel will not be there to be blamed.

Al-Qaeda, even without Osama bin Laden, will still receive enormous funds from Islamic and Arab states and continue its campaign against the "infidels." Even without the excuse of U.S. troops any longer in Iraq, the Islamists will target Europe and America with suicide killers, just as they perpetrated their grisly work among hapless Israeli civilians.

All this will be the reality in a world that can no longer have Israel to blame for its ills.

The world hated the stateless Jews and now it hates the State of the Jews. But Israel may yet survive and find leaders who present a strong, resolute defiance to the world's siren calls for it to commit national suicide, all for the sake of an illusory peace.

From Madrid to Oslo to Camp David great demands were made upon Israel to take risks for peace, the majority of which Israel met. Far lesser demands were made upon the Palestinian Arabs, which they have hardly ever met.

President Obama, nevertheless, plans on perpetuating the discredited two-state solution and will press Israel to give away its biblical heartland to create the 23rd Arab state. That is the goal of Hillary Clinton and her so-called dream team. But dreams often become nightmares.

President Reagan at first believed the received wisdom that all problems in the Middle East stemmed from the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It was Israel's Menachem Begin who disabused him of that fallacy and educated him on biblical and post biblical Jewish history in its ancestral homeland.

Prime Minister Begin and President Reagan, though from very different backgrounds, were both conservatives. Binyamin Netanyahu is a fiscal conservative while President Obama is anything but, and the President's foreign policy as it relates to the Israel-Arab conflict is jarringly in opposition to that of Netanyahu and Israel's conservative parties.

Netanyahu may yet educate the new American President to the ties that bind Israel to its land and to the immense dangers to all from Iran. Perhaps he will be the man to save both Israel and the United States from irreparable harm.

If not, all the democracies of the world will stumble before Iran's ascendant theocracy and Israel will not be there for them to blame.

Victor Sharpe writes on Jewish history and the Arab-Israel conflict. He is the author of volumes One and Two of: Politicide — The attempted murder of the Jewish state. Both books are available at Amazon.com Contact him by email at janvic@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, March 26, 2010.

This was written by Josef Leaf and it appeared March 19, 2010 in the Montreal Gazette
http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/United+Nations +worth+what/2703923/story.html#ixzz0jJuAhV0R

Jesse Leaf has logged in more than 30 years as a journalist, editor and publisher. He's authored 10 books and hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles. Early in his career, he did a seven-year stint with the CIA as their chief Iran analyst.


Get a globe and spin it. Jab your finger down at random and, without doubt, you will have located a spot entangled in war, revolution, rebellion, terrorism, famine, plague, drought, dictatorship, poverty and/or illiteracy. If I told you the year was 1810, you wouldn't be surprised. If I told you the year was 2010, tragically, you wouldn't be surprised, either.

It wasn't supposed to be like this. Mankind was supposed to be beyo nd these primitive scourges. Who said so? The United Nations did, back in 1945.

In those halcyon days when light was readmitted to a world darkened by world war, some actually believed that a global organization could, as stated in the UN charter, eliminate war, safeguard human rights and equality (specifically adding men and women), establish justice under international law, and — the best part — "promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom."

It's time to say "Enough"

In other words, the UN was born to be the savior of a species hell-bent on destroying itself. It has been a miserable failure in its overall mission, and worse, a destructive force in almost every one of its individual endeavors. It's time to say, "Enough!" The UN hasn't done enough good, and has caused enough damage for a top-to-bottom reconsideration of its future. At the very least, there is a desperate need for a major overhaul in its structure and functions; at most, an outright abolition of this expensive tool of despair.

A full legal argument against the UN. would make a formidable document. A snapshot of its failures will more than suffice. Going back to its own charter, we see that the mission of the UN is split between peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. What has happened is that the latter is all too connected in the former's shortcomings. Those who would argue that one the UN's greatest achievements has been the handling of the displaced conveniently ignore the fact that these people were displaced because of the very wars the UN was pledged to prevent.

Not only that, the history of those UN. forces charged with peacekeeping (UN troops are routinely called "peacekeepers," not "troops" or "soldiers") has been nothing but a litany of criminal acts. In Liberia, for example, the UN finally acted after 14 years of a typical African mind-numbing civil war that saw 200,000 citizens slaughtered amid survivors' harrowing stories of sadism including torture, systematic rape and addicting young boys to drugs to get them to fight. In marched the blue-bereted UN troops — peacekeepers to be precise — and promptly established business as usual, sexually abusing the female population and trading food and money for sex.

After a UN study exposed the abuses to world scrutiny, as if anyone was surprised, the organization's brilliant answer was to recently replace some of the troops with Indian and Nigerian female soldiers (sarcastically called by the UN its "blue helmettes") to make conditions more "homelike and normal." Right; the jury is still out on this one, but it doesn't take an Einstein to predict the next catastrophic UN blunder.

In its never-ending quest to make things as complicated and ineffective as possible, the UN didn't realize that the women couldn't drive manual transmissions and so were effectively confined to the base areas. It took the Canadian government and the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre in Ottawa to intervene by donating vehicles and organizing driving lessons (in Ghana, no less) for the helmettes.

UN paralyzed in Somalia

In Somalia, the UN has been paralyzed for decades, as the country essentially ceased to exist. With no real central government, and the pseudo-nation governed piecemeal by competing gangs, it degenerated into a Disneyland for piracy — which, astoundingly, became its chief source of income. In the face of UN inaction, interventions were carried out, tragically, by the American military (a pathetic fiasco), and then the laughable troops of the African Union sent under the auspices of the . . . guess who?

The Union, a scheme by Libyan strongman daffy Quadhafi, was to counter the European Union with the African Union — one country, one currency, one army. It was no surprise that it has gone nowhere fast, save sending an impotent continent of A.U. troops to Somalia to watch over troops of thugs merrily pirating, and the establishment of a Somalia-Yemen terrorist partnership. A total farce.

Only recently was it announced that the UN was bypassed again, as the US is once again establishing a military presence in Somalia to attempt a takeback of the capital.

But nowhere has the UN performed so contrary to every tenet of its original charter, and to the principles of simple humanity, as in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The UN has condemned Israel dozens of times, and not once an Arab nation. The UN has never condemned aggressive wars against Israel in 1948, 1967, or 1973, nor any of the thousands of terrorists attacks against innocent civilians since the state's inception.

For all the good it does, only the presence of the US on the Security Council, with its absolute veto power, has prevented the passage of these resolutions condemning the Jewish state.

While the world burns — Darfur, Afghanistan, the Congo, Sudan, eco disasters, abuse of women, poverty, illiteracy — reread the first paragraph — the world's elite flap their jowls in New York and jealously guard their own self-interests. Corruption is rampant in UN programs: witness the Oil-for-Food fiasco as one example. In other programs, a UN presence has meant increases in local corruption, diversion of resources, human rights abuses and prostitution.

Can the UN. overcome humanity's shortcomings with aspirations greater than itself? Some say it doesn't matter; talk is better than war. But there is no evidence that the UN has prevented even a single shot being taken. In fact, more wars have started since the founding of the UN than have stopped, for one reason or another. And the peacekeepers have enjoyed partaking of their own atrocities under the blue flag of peace.

And now, with the threat of an expanding and barbaric threat of terrorism spreading across the world, the UN seems even more impotent to deal with the problem. It's time to recognize that the problem is with the UN, and something must be done and done soon.

The cost of running the United Nations is substantial. According to its own data, "The UN system spends some $15 billion a year, taking into account the United Nations, UN peacekeeping operations, the programmes and funds, and the specialized agencies, but excluding the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Around half of this amount comes from voluntary contributions from Member States, the rest from mandatory assessments on those States."

That comes out to a little more than $2 for every man, woman and child on the planet, and doesn't account for the associated cost to individual countries for participating in the various missions. Assessments are decided upon by consensus, and are a never-ending source of disagreement among members, to the point where about 20 per cent of member states pay only a portion of what is owed, pay late, or don't pay at all. During the Bush administration, the US withheld part of its assessment to protest the UN position on abortion. There is no mechanism to force compliance.

Assessments are determined by a formula based on a country's gross domestic product, less various factors such as external debt. It is an unfair system, because some countries "cook the books." For example, China, with an artificially valued currency, pays less than Canada despite the fact that its GDP is triple. The US pays the largest assessment, 22 per cent, but 25 per cent of peacekeeping costs, amounts under dispute for years as being excessive.

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 26, 2010.

We Jews are commanded to consider ourselves as if we had come out from Egypt. This year it seems particularly important that we learn the lessons of Pesach, with regard to our freedom as a people, and the purpose of that freedom.

At the seder, we sing "Dayenu" — it would have been sufficient for us, if only this had been given to us, and only that. This is to demonstrate our gratitude for the enormity of all the gifts the Almighty bestowed upon us.

But in point of fact, within our tradition we are not actually taught "dayenu." The Exodus on its own would not have been sufficient. It has meaning in the context of what followed: most notably, our acceptance of the Torah and then our coming into the Land, given to us as a people, by G-d. It is not enough to be free, stam, just so, without purpose.


It's possible that I will write again before Pesach (which begins Monday evening and ends with dark the following Monday here in Israel). But I want to take time to extend greetings now:

Pesach Kasher V'Sameach to all. A kosher and joyous Pesach. May we all be mindful of the purpose of our coming out from Egypt.

Over Pesach it is unlikely that I will be posting — so no concern if you don't receive anything.


With regard to our interaction with the US, matters continue to remain in flux, and that situation will persist for some days at least.

Netanyahu is convening the inner cabinet this afternoon. But in spite of Obama's demand (demand??) that we provide answers tomorrow (on Shabbat?) on the things his administration is seeking from us — so that our responses can be brought to an Arab League meeting in Libya — it has been decided that several days of discussion will be required and no answer will be forthcoming until after Pesach.

What unsettles me is an implicit assumption on the part of Obama that the inner cabinet will only be rubber-stamping agreements he's already made with Netanyahu: Why would he want our responses to bring to an Arab League meeting if he weren't banking on certain answers? Does he have reason to assume this, based on what Netanyahu has already said, or is this an expression of his arrogance?

Key to what happens is the strength of the right-wing or nationalist members of the inner cabinet: Yaalon, Begin, Yishai and Leiberman. If they, who constitute a majority of the seven-person committee, don't concede what should not be conceded, and remain mindful of the fact that we are a sovereign state that must act with dignity, we will be all right.


A statement by a spokesman for the prime minister, cited by JPost, sounds like official spin: He says that Obama has accepted that we will not freeze construction in Jerusalem (really? is this so?), but that there is an expectation that other agreements made between Netanyahu and Obama would be approved by the cabinet.

Yet Khaled Abu Toameh and Herb Keinon, writing in the JPost, indicate that Obama has informed the PA that there was no agreement on the issue of construction in eastern Jerusalem.

(According to this article, as well, Barak confessed disappointment that our freeze in Judea and Samaria was not enough to bring the PA to the table. Welcome to the real world, Ehud.)


It does seem to be the case that Netanyahu stood strong on the issue of construction in all parts of Jerusalem. The prime minister made a statement to this effect today, and Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat has expressed appreciation to him publicly for protecting the city as a unified whole.

But Jerusalem, while perhaps the first issue, is, as we know, hardly the only US demand.

I hasten to make clear that there is still nothing official regarding what is being sought of us, but press is offering some picture of what Obama wants — very little if any of it being a surprise. It seems likely that Netanyahu and his cabinet will concede on some matters, at least.


[] An extension of the 10-month freeze on construction. Netanyahu was warned about this at the time that he took the very ill-advised step to freeze construction. It did not take a prophet to see that Obama would want more and that it's difficult to unfreeze once the commitment to the freeze has been made. The prime minister has repeatedly pledged that construction would begin again at the end of the 10 months in September. We'll see.


[] Granting of greater control of areas to the Palestinian Authority.

Some reports say that what is desired is a return to the pre-Intifada (2002) situation.

In a nutshell: We had pulled back from areas of major Arab population in Judea and Samaria as part of Oslo understandings. But when violence increased — in particular, suicide bombings — in 2002, we found it necessary to move back into these areas as part of Operation Defensive Shield. Since then, the IDF has maintained the latitude to do anti-terror operations in these areas, even as some places have nominally been turned over to the control of PA security forces during the day. Our anti-terror operations proceed nightly, with terrorists caught, and terror cells and caches of weapons and weapons factories uncovered, and these operations have done superbly in protecting us.

I cannot emphasize this strongly enough: The much-touted "new" PA security forces, improved, as least in theory, by US training supervised by Gen. Dayton, are not sufficient to the task and will not reliably take out terrorists, most notably but not exclusively, from Hamas.

This is a subject I've explored before — and written about in detail — and I will return to it. The demand being made of us impinges directly on the safety of Jewish civilians here. (There is even an issue of possible conciliation between Hamas and Fatah, which would lead to the insane situation of Hamas commanding the troops that were trained to fight Hamas.)

A concession in this area would, in my opinion, represent a severe dereliction of the duty of the government to protect its citizens.


Some sources have reported that the PA wants Abu Dis, an Arab village almost immediately adjacent to Jerusalem, to be turned over. But other sources are denying this. Abu Dis was touted at one point as being the future capital of a Palestinian state.

This action would represent a serious security danger, because of the proximity to Jerusalem and the fact that a weapons factory was discovered there recently.

[] Release of prisoners as a gesture to Abbas. This is hardly new. Some sources are saying as many as 2,000 are being sought. There is no information regarding the "caliber" of the prisoners that might be released or if the PA has specific demands in this regard.

[] Also not new is the demand that core issues be raised during the "proximity" talks. I expect this will happen and I don't think this threatens us as long as it is understood that resolution of these issues can take place only in face to face negotiations.

[] Then there is the re-emergence of the demand that we end the "blockade" of Gaza.


What continues to deeply disturb me are the multiple reports on the humiliating manner in which Obama treated Netanyahu. I know the press can spin material, but I'm reading specifics, such as Obama walking out on Netanyahu at the White House. The fact that there were no photo ops and no press releases makes this all credible.

Thus, as well, I'm not pleased with the Netanyahu effort to put a good face on his relationship with Obama. I know there are political reasons for some of this, but the tone is demeaning to us. Netanyahu was quoted today as saying he trusted Obama. Huh??


If I do write again before Pesach, perhaps I will address the issue floating in the air with regard to inclusion of Livni in the government. I myself at this point have scant expectation that this is going to happen. Arlene Kushner is Senior Analyst for the Center for Near East Policy Research in Jerusalem. Contact her at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Maayana Miskin and Hillel Fendel, March 26, 2010.

The colorful and vibrant Chaya (Clara) Hammer, a long-time popular teacher who was most recently known for the "chicken fund" she ran single-handedly on behalf of needy families in Jerusalem, passed away in Jerusalem on Thursday night. She was just a few weeks shy of her 100th birthday.

She was commonly known as "the chicken lady," because her fund was based on distributing free chickens each week to hundreds of families. She went on to provide some $10,000 worth of meat each week practically up until her death; the fund is now run by one of her great-granddaughters.

Dr. Hammer, who received an honorary "doctorate in kindness" from Yeshiva University a number of years ago, will be buried on Friday at 1 p.m. at Beit HaHesped in Givat Sha'ul, Jerusalem. She is survived by her three daughters, nine grandchildren, over 35 great-grandchildren, and some 40 great-great-grandchildren.

In an interview with Aish HaTorah in 2008, Dr. Hammer recalled her own experience with hunger. After she was captured as a young girl with her family while crossing the border between Romania and Russia, the family was put in jail for seven weeks and given very little food. "I have never, never, never forgotten that," she recounted to Aish. "What it means to be hungry. What it means to cry, 'I want another piece of bread' and the mother says, 'I'm sorry, I don't have.'"

From jail, the family moved to the Land of Israel, but was forced to leave their home in Haifa for the United States after about a year when Clara's mother took ill.

Chaya married Efraim Hammer at a young age, having met him at an event whose themes of Torah, Zionism, and the Hebrew language were to shape their shared lives together for the next several decades. Mrs. Hammer was known as an especially gifted and lively teacher; teachers in the Kingsway Jewish Center in New York City were approved only after passing through her class.

The Hammers lived in Pittsburgh, New York, and finally in Los Angeles, where they were instrumental in founding the area's first Orthodox synagogue and mikvah. "Their devotion to keeping the Sabbath and building Jewish life under difficult conditions was legendary," a grandson-in-law said.

In 1969 she and her husband finally fulfilled a life-long dream and made Aliyah (immigrated) to Israel. They lived, for the rest of their lives, in the first building to be built in Jerusalem's then-new Ramat Eshkol neighborhood; shiva will be observed in that home beginning Saturday night, but will be abbreviated by the onset of the Pesach holiday.

The Hammers were followed later on Aliyah by their three daughters and their families.

Chaya often recounted how one Friday, almost 30 years ago, she was buying meat at her local butcher and noticed a young girl receiving scraps of bone and fat. When she commented to the butcher, he explained that the girl's father was disabled and unable to work, the family was very poor, and the bone and thistle would be mixed in a soup to provide a bit of nutrition.

Mrs. Hammer immediately told the butcher to give the girl two chickens and a pound of chopped meat every week, and to charge it to her account. She then began to tell friends and family about the needy families in her community, and started to gather funds for chicken for a growing number of families.

By 2008, she was providing chicken to more than 120 families a week. She also looked for other ways to help the families, such as by providing school supplies or clothing, and reached out to families in other cities as well.

In addition to the YU honorary doctorate, Mrs. Hammer received many awards, including Yakirat Yerushalayim and Eishet Chayil, and was a leading member in Emunah Women, Hadassah, Bikur Cholim, the League for Special Children, and more. She founded the flourishing Bracha chapter of Emunah in Jerusalem for English speakers.

Maayan Miskin writes for Arutz-7. Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 26, 2010.


President Obama delivered a semi-snub to Israeli PM Netanyahu by omitting the usual ceremonies in greeting a visiting head of government. They met behind closed doors without standing alongside each other for pictures beforehand.

Netanyahu had just told the AIPAC convention, "Jerusalem is not a "settlement; it's our capital." He rejected the U.S. demand that Israel halt construction in parts of Jerusalem that the U.S. wants Israel to give to the Palestinian Authority. He agreed to restrain poorly timed announcements about construction.

Administration officials anticipate worse confrontations as Obama strives to get Palestinian Authority-Israel negotiations started. They and British officials wonder whether the nationalists in Israel would let a peace agreement be concluded (3/24).

The trappings of diplomacy, including inspection of honor guards, seem childish.

Israel tried to make up with Obama, but this isn't a normal disagreement, Obama is striving to dictate policy to Israel. Whereas the timing of an innocent Israeli announcement wasn't tactful, it was not the deliberate and frequent insults delivered by the Obama administration, starting long before the incident about Jerusalem became a pretext for Administration pressure.

The real question is not whether Israeli nationalists would let a peace agreement be concluded. The real questions are:

(1) Why does Israel let foreign countries interfere in its peace negotiations and policies;

(2) How would concluded negotiations with fanatical jihadists who violated all their other peace agreements and whose ideology is to conquer Israel, make genuine, lasting peace;

(3) Since it is the Arab side that refuses to negotiate, why does the U.S. not only pressure Israel to make concessions to that side, but acts angry about it;

(4) Why does the U.S. make public demands on Israel, such that the Palestinian Authority then uses those demands as pretexts not to negotiate;

(5) How does U.S. pressure on Israel square with Obama promises not to impose upon other countries? Earlier articles on this reveal various unscrupulous Administration tactics;

(6) Why does the U.S. help finance the forces of the terrorist Fatah P.A. regime, which, incidentally, shares funds with Hamas, while fighting against other Islamist terrorists having the same goals?

The basic answer is that the State Dept. traditionally is anti-Zionist, patient and unscrupulous, unsuccessful in most foreign policy endeavors, and sometimes have a President who shares its pro-Arab view. Obama does. Hence he tries to bully Israel into what amounts to national suicide — rendering it helpless before internal subversion and invaders — and calls that peacemaking.

Congress and the American people are friendly to Israel. Congress has been appropriating a $3 billion annual subsidy of Israel for decades. Secretary of State Clinton cited that aid as an example of Obama's friendship for Israel. This is one of her unscrupulous tactics, like Senators Biden and Obama first denouncing the proposed Iraqi surge, then declaring it a failure when its success was apparent, then when they no longer could criticize Pres. Bush for the surge, Biden's declaring that it is a success for the (new) Obama administration. The newspaper should not call the executive branch of the government an ally of Israel. It is Israel's chief enemy, operating by deception and not perceived as such.


This week, Palestinian Authority head Abbas "said that the Palestinian people had a national right to resistance against Israeli occupation" ('Abbas: Palestinian people have national right to resistance,' Haaretz, March 22, 2010). 'Resistance' is the Palestinian Arab euphemism for terrorism against Israel.

In keeping with this assertion, the PA recently "Dalal Mughrabi, who commanded the terrorists that perpetrated the 1978 coastal road bus hijacking, in which 37 Israelis, including 12 children, were slaughtered. Abbas' PA has also honored Mughrabi on previous occasions, including holding a public celebration for her 50th birthday last January."

"Only weeks earlier, Fatah-controlled PA TV broadcast a sermon from Nablus's Bourin Mosque on January 29, in which Jews were declared "the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger ... Enemies of humanity in general" and Muslims exhorted to murder them with the words "The Prophet says: 'You shall fight the Jews and kill them..." (PA TV [Fatah], Jan. 29, 2010, translation in Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, 'PA TV sermon: "Jews are enemies of Allah and humanity — Kill them,"' Palestinian Media Watch, February 1, 2010). (From 3/24 press release by Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member.)

In support of murdering Jews, the P.A. quotes religious teachings from almost 1400 years ago. Still think the Arab-Israel conflict is a territorial one rather than an antisemitic religious one? Still think Abbas is a man of peace and an opponent of terrorism? Secretary of State Clinton says


In New York, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, told the Security Council, "All settlement activity is illegal, but inserting settlers into Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem is particularly troubling."

In Washington, President Obama asked Israeli PM Netanyahu to commit in writing to halt further building and to proceed to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority (Helene Cooper and Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 325, A14).

The Arabs had no legal jurisdiction in Jerusalem, so what are "Palestinian neighborhoods?" Why does the UN want certain neighborhoods to exclude Jews from their current and traditional capital, but all the rest of Israel to include Arabs with the Jews? What about Arab "settlers?"

Why does Obama want only Jews not to build in certain areas, but does not object to Arabs squatting and building anywhere? Why does Obama, who breaks his promises and makes other false statements on many foreign and domestic issues, such as the "surge" and cost of legislation, ask someone else to put a promise in writing? Why is Obama asking Netanyahu to move ahead on negotiations, when he is ready but is left at the altar by his Palestinian Authority (P.A.) bride? Why does Obama ask Israel to show good faith, while, as the prior article shows, the P.A. exhorts its people to murder Jews and they do keep trying by rocks, firebombs, knives, bullets, and rockets? Moral blindness by Obama and the UN undermine their case.

U.S. presidents tend toward megalomania. The incumbent keeps shortcutting the Constitution and legal custom. He shakes faith in the U.S. government by not only repudiating previous presidents' commitments but denying what everyone knows were such commitments. Such hubris, to follow a narrow ideological line contrary to experience, may overwhelm opposition but rebound against the country. And when a political party acts high-handedly, considering that independents outnumber partisans, that party invites a counter-reaction.

Do those of my readers who object to what they call Israeli apartheid endorse the apartheid proposed by Obama and Ban?


In order to present a unified stand in the Security Council, the U.S. dropped some sanctions it had proposed against Iran. The dropped terms were intended to block Iran from international banking services and capital markets and bar its ships and planes from international lanes.

China still suggests resolving the problem by negotiation. Russia still plans to help Iran start its nuclear reactor, against U.S. objections (Wall St. J., 3/25, A1).

Considering how intent and close Iran is to complete its nuclear development, sanctions must be drastic to work. Mild sanctions won't work. President Obama seems to be going through the motions of trying sanctions, so he can say he tried.

Considering how intent and close Iran is to complete its nuclear development, China's suggestion to negotiate, after years in which Iran either refused to negotiate or used negotiations to get sanctions deferred, and operated in other ways in bad faith, sounds like a poor excuse for not putting its muscle behind the effort to bar nuclear proliferation.

Note that Russia still helps Iran. So much for collective security via the UN! The UN is a place where necessary action is put off. As for the Russian move, announced when Secretary of Clinton arrived in Moscow, the U.S. did not demand an apology from Russia for an affront, only from Israel. Why the double standard? For one reason, the U.S. was looking for a pretext for quarrel with Israel.


The Presidents of the two countries agreed to cut almost in half their supply of strategic (long-range) nuclear weapons. President Obama considers that a major step toward his goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

The pact would revise the inspection procedure. The report does not specify how. It does state that the U.S. no longer would be able to station inspectors at Russia's Votkinsk missile factory permanently.

If Russia decided that the U.S. has deployed too extensive a missile defense, it could withdraw from the agreement on the grounds that the U.S. has violated the spirit of the preamble to the agreement. A former State Dept. official considers this also a major step toward better relations with Russia.

President Obama thinks this agreement would bolster his demand that certain other countries relinquish nuclear weapons (New York Times, 3/25).

Obama assumes an equity in international relations that does not exist. Nor is his hope logical, for the situation of one country is different from another's.

Preambles usually explain purpose. They do not make rules. There must be something defective about this agreement that relies upon a preamble's "spirit."

Experts had better check whether this agreement allows the U.S. to deploy proper defense against other states' more modest number of nuclear missiles.

Experts had better check whether this agreement has proper inspection and enforcement. Previous agreements did not. Russia secretly cheated. The U.S. did not cheat, but wanted to "reinterpret" the pacts.

Many countries negotiate not to solve problems but to position themselves better to exacerbate them. The U.S. supposes that the other side intends to keep the agreement.

Is this agreement going to bind the U.S. as if it were a treaty, but without Senate confirmation? Unwise. The President is moving in general to high-handed tactics in order to impose government control over the economy and the people. The government needs to be regulated even more than business and individuals.

A nuclear-free goal is a nightmare. It is the kind of naïve idealism that gets countries conquered. While the U.S. reduces weapons, Iran develops them, and the U.S. is not stopping it.

Not mentioned by the New York Times is the stock of tactical (short-range, battlefield) nuclear artillery shells. They present a greater danger of escalation, because they are dispersed under more commanders and as more targets for terrorist raids.


Hotel and former owner (AP/Bernat Armanque)

The Wall St. Journal headline is, "Israeli plans add to tension with U.S.." The story is, "News of the latest building project, known as the Shepherd's Hotel, was leaked to the press by an Israeli anti-settlement watchdog group on Tuesday, just as PM Benjamin Netanyahu was about to meet Pres. Barak Obama in Washington."

The journalist explains, "Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the capital of any future Palestinian state."

Gen. David Petraeus told the U.S. Senate that if the Arab-Israel conflict was damaging U.S. strategic interests in the region. Many Israelis suspect that remark is part of the Obama administration's full-court press against Israel, and aims at eroding Americans' support for Israel (Charles Levinson, Wall St. J., 325, A10) just as Administration ally George Soros set up J Street to split U.S. Jewish opinion.

It is false and malicious to suggest, in these days of international jihad engulfing one country after another, that Muslims fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan because of the Arab-Israel conflict. Prof. Edward Alexander considers the general's demagoguery a blood libel in traditional blame-the-Jew fashion. (Alexander's article came in e-mail from Prof. Steven Plaut, 3/24)

So what if some Arabs without sovereignty say they would like a certain part of Israel's capital to be their capital some day! Their wish is not Israel's command. They gain no legal standing from that wish.

Nor do they want just a certain part of Jerusalem. Does the Journal not know that the Palestinian Authority claims all of Israel? Since they do, wouldn't it be wiser not to give them anything they can use, in accordance with Arafat's doctrine of conquering Israel in phases, to make more war?

This time, the government of Israel did not release information about another building, an anti-government organization did. Now will the U.S. administration and media pounce on that NGO for adding to tension with the U.S.?

Again, the project already had been approved, this was a later phase in it.


tribes say only democracy can beat terrorism (A.P./Mohammed Sajjad)

The U.S. praised anti-terrorism action by Pakistan. Still unsure how fair that will go, the U.S. is more sympathetic to Pakistan's request for military and civilian aid. The U.S. has given Pakistan $17 billion in aid, but Pakistan used it mostly to build forces to match India's. It wants Pakistan to root out the terrorists.

An Associated Press photo accompanying the article is of the house of a suspected terrorist blown up by Pakistani security forces (Peter Spiegel and Jay Solomon, Wall St. J., 3/25, A18).

When Israel blows up the houses of known terrorists, the U.S. is displeased.


Plant in N. Korea (AP/Xinhua Gao-Haorong)

The new UN sanctions proposed by the U.S. are weak, ineffective, and tardy, not taking effect until at least June. Some people suggest giving up on stopping Iran and instead consider how to contain its nuclear weaponry. Can the U.S.?

Nuclear containment depends on deterrence. Deterrence depends on credibility. The U.S. lacks credibility with Iran. Why? The U.S. has made many threats against Iran, but didn't act. Indeed, the U.S. took military action off the table. Then it dithered with mild sanctions, in order to do it multi-laterally. No deterrence that way. Why should a nuclear-armed Iran believe the U.S.?

What might the U.S. contain? Iran is not likely to attack another country with nuclear weapons, the author believes. Iran is too cautious. It proceeds patiently and inexorably. It is more likely to use nuclear clout to intimidate, so as to gain regional hegemony. The Arab states, fearing Iran now, will tremble harder. Israel will fear it riskier to destroy Hizbullah and Hamas.

What will the U.S. do, continue diverting attention from its weakness by blaming the Arab-Israel conflict for Iran and Israel for the Arab-Israel conflict? (IMRA, 3/20 from Emily B. Landau, Institute for National Security Studies, in Israel).

In other words, it is Iran that gains deterrence!


In the past year, the Obama administration approved advanced weapons sales to Egypt and $10 billion of weapons sales to the rest of the Arab League, and refused all Israeli purchase of U.S. weapons.

40 years ago, the U.S. pledged to maintain Israel's military "qualitative edge." President George W. Bush, seeking Arab support for the U.S. war in Iraq, quietly abandoned the policy. The Obama administration seems to be withholding the weapons as a lever to coerce Israel into making concessions to the Palestinian Arabs.

20 years ago, Israel stopped participating in air force exercises with the U.S., after finding that Israel's Arab enemies knew of Israeli aerial combat tactics.

Reporting this, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (in the U.S.) accuses the Netanyahu administration of failing to make the U.S. blackmail be known, and fails to object to huge sales of U.S. arms and training to the Arabs (Arutz-7, 3/25)

If Netanyahu made this known, the U.S. wouldn't be able to claim it is maintaining Israel's military edge and "unshakable" friendship with Israel. Why doesn't he — the pre-existing U.S. practice has nothing to do with his regime?

The U.S. imposes possibly existential sanctions against Israel but mild ones against Iran. Sounds warped, like the pretense of U.S. administrations at being friendly or fair. Since Obama's declared at the outset a year ago that he would change the U.S. relationship with Israel, secretly imposed military sanctions against Israel, and snubbed Israel at a prior visit by Netanyahu, Obama must have been gunning for Israel. The claim that Israel insulted him is a convenient pretext to shift the blame for deteriorating relations.

AIPAC seems not to have objected to the heavy military buildup of the Arabs. Do not expect, however, antisemites to stop claiming that "the Jews" dictate U.S. foreign policy.


General Petraeus denies having blamed Israel as having prompted Radical Muslims to attack U.S. troops and denies suggesting that he have U.S. troops occupy Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

YNET and Jerusalem Post had reported his blame and suggestion, but he denies uttering them or writing them in the report he gave the U.S. Senate. His denial is clear and emphatic.

He does maintain that the Arab world has a perception that the U.S. favors Israel (Arutz-7, 3/26 from his 3/24 statement)

The Arabs do have that misperception as do American antisemites. They cultivate it for propaganda to demand more and to seem as underdogs.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Evelyn Hayes, March 25, 2010.

Feature Article: Jewish Reality and Pride by Evelyn Haies, Pres. Rachels Children Reclamation Foundation

I couldn't sleep when the facts about Kever Rachel as a Jewish Heritage site were challenged. I saw our Jewish history of nationhood, Torah, morality and love being humiliated and nullified. I saw my reality targeted again by hate with the tool of falsehoods, fabrications and friction. Yaakov Avinu met the challenge of the angel and became Israel. Rachel Imeinu met the challenge of Jewish motherhood and sisterhood by not putting herself first; she put midos first and is remembered as Mother Israel over 3600 years. Emunah meets the challenges.

As I am Chaya, granddaughter of a maternal Rachel Kampinsky Dickstein and a paternal Rachel Rabinowitz Solomon, my namesakes, their history of conviction and identity are my foundation. There are no facts in my lineage that are rewriteable. Rachel Kampinsky and her father Shmuel survived the sinking of The Denmark when they fled Russia Poland after the 1881 pogroms. Rachel Rabinowitz is the daughter of the famous Shepsel Rebbi of Eastern Europe. My family did not lose their way where they sought sanctuary, they worked hard and followed the orthodoxy of their ancestors that trusted in G-d. My first daughter is Rachel, Mirachelle is a granddaughter, a grandson is Shmuel. Names generated from Biblical times.

Keeping the facts of our history is also important. The Philistines were invaders from the north, Macedonia. They were conquered by David, the name of my father's grandfather, Chaim ben David. The Roman conquerors renamed Israel Palestine to confuse the Jews as to their affiliation to the land but the Jews prayed to return to Eretz Israel and Jerusalem throughout their exiles and supported the Jews who never left, who studied in Jerusalem, Hebron, Tsefat, Pekiin, Acco and Tiberias. The Roman name Aetola Capitolina never replaced the name of holy Jerusalem.

In 1827 the Montefiores visited Israel which was under Ottoman occupation. Sir Moses was allowed to visit the recognized Jewish holy sites of Jerusalem, Beis Lechem and Hebron. He was sold land outside the walled city of Jerusalem, refaced and expanded Rachel's Tomb in 1841 and supported yeshivas in Hebron which was populated by such famous Jewish families as the Slonims and Shneersons. It is their descendants that are buried in the holy Hebron cemetery. It was the Kalisher Kehillah that bought the land across from Rachel's Tomb in 1875. It was Nathan Strauss who bought land there in 1924, now behind the wall. Rachel's Tomb was never a mosque. After the brief Jordanian Occupation in 1967, the Daybooks and keys to Rachel's Tomb were returned to the Jews.

On September 28 1995, Prime Minsiter Yitzchak Rabin refused to sign Oslo II until it included the amendment to recognize 29 Jewish holy sites. The Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, Rachel's Tomb, Joseph's Tomb and Shalom Synagogue in Jericho were to always be under Jewish control. As archaeology validates Jewish reality, the Jewish mind must remember that they are coming to confuse us again. The roots of the past are the foundation of the future. Remember, we are Rachels Children; she is our uncontestable heritage.

Evelyn Hayes is president of the Rachels Children Reclamation Foundation She is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes." Contact her at rachelschildren@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, March 25, 2010.

Iranian-American Advisor to Ahmadinejad and Professor at American University in Washington, DC: Iran Must Improve 'Soft Warfare' Capabilities Against U.S., West

This comes from This is from the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Special Dispatch, 2874, March 25, 2010.


This month, Iran's Press TV website published an article about Professor Hamid Mowlana, of American University in Washington, DC,[1] who is also advisor to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad chose Mowlana, who holds dual Iranian and American citizenship, as advisor in August 2008; at that time, Iranian conservatives were critical of the choice.[2]

In December 2008, Mowlana was photographed stepping on a U.S. flag during a visit to Tehran. Previously, in 2007, Mowlana said in a speech at Tehran University: "We must resist against hegemony, and Iran's current power is due to its resistance." He also said that American history and foreign policy were driven by the desire to build an empire.[3]

The following are excerpts from the Press TV article in the original English; the article was published March 11, 2010:[4]

"The U.S. Has Been Trying to 'Infiltrate' Into Iran by Influencing Clerics, Professors, Students, Journalists, Businessmen"

American University Professor Hamid Mowlana

"A senior professor of international relations has called on the Iranian government to prepare a strategy to counter the 'soft warfare' launched by the U.S. The Iranian officials should carry out studies on the tactics used by the West and the United States to influence Iran, said [Iranian] President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's adviser Professor Hamid Mowlana during a conference on 'soft warfare' in Tehran...

"Mowlana noted that since World War II, the U.S. has employed executive organizations, universities and media outlets to use soft warfare tactics to put into practice its policies in the world. 'I can say even that the professors of big American social sciences universities took part in U.S. soft warfare and psycho war during World War II,' the professor added.

"Mowlana noted that the West, however, was not successful 'in recognizing our soft power infrastructure.' The U.S. has been trying to 'infiltrate' into Iran by influencing clerics, professors, students, journalists, businessmen, managers of big companies and others, he said.

"He added that the West has spent years on finding ways to attract our youth to itself and has tried to change the attitude of the international community's elite toward Iran. "Mowlana, who is a professor of International Relations at the School of International Service (SIS) of American University in Washington, advised Iranian officials to take 'clear' measures to counter Western tactics against Iran."

Mowlana steps on U.S. Flag

Mowlana Steps on U.S. Flag During 2008 Visit to Iran

In several photos posted December 24, 2008 on the Iranian Fars news agency's website, Professor Mowlana is shown stepping on an American flag during a visit to Iran.[5]


[1] http://www1.sis.american.edu/faculty/ facultybiographies/mowlana.htm.

[2] Tabnak (Iran), August 21, 2008, http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/9557.htm.

[3] ISNA (Iran), December 17, 2007, http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/4181.htm.

[4] Press TV, Iran, March 11, 2010. The English has been lightly edited for clarity.

[5] Fars (Iran), December 24, 2008, http://thememriblog.org/iran/blog_personal/en/12401.htm.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, March 25, 2010.

Pesach in Hebron: Wednesday and Thursday of Passover

It's well known that Jewish Torah study can be divided into several different categories, known in Hebrew by the first letter of each word, 'Pardes.' This relates to the 'simple' most literal meaning of Torah, through the most esoteric understanding, known as Kabbalah, or popularly, Jewish mysticism. Despite the growing popularity of the latter, even amongst non-Jews, in truth, very very few people can be called authentic Kabbalists, as genuine Kabbalah demands not only knowledge, but also an extremely high spiritual level, which few people ever reach.

For this reason, many Kabbalistic writings are extremely difficult to understand, and a massive amount of teachings are not even put down in writing; rather they are passed on from teacher to student orally, and are submitted only to those who are really deserving of this unique knowledge.

In addition there are a select few manuscripts which have been excruciatingly guarded over the centuries, viewed by the eyes of almost no human beings.

Being in Hebron has its advantages. I recently received one of the rarest manuscripts in existence, read it in one sitting, totally spellbound. I do not have permission to copy it for you, word for word, but I can repeat what I remember by memory.

The document is called 'The Moses Files' and was written some 3,300 years ago. The content is as follows.

Following Moses' first meeting with Pharaoh in Egypt, the enslaved Jewish Israelites began grumbling. Here the promised leader had arrived and guaranteed free passage from the hell they'd been suffering for over 200 years. They watched and waited impatiently, knowing that a major summit was in process, with the two leaders haggling between them.

Then, when the meeting had concluded, not only weren't they freed, but to the contrary, their conditions worsened. The Jewish Slaves Gazette, published by the Jewish Slaves Association, headlined: FAILURE! And the sub caption: Did Moses Blow It? Did Aharon Get the Words Right or Wrong?

An editorial demanded that Moses and Aharon be replaced with others, suggesting perhaps Datan and Aviram.

Moses, in an exclusive interview, suggested some patience, claiming that: "G-d will come through, just wait a bit. The best it yet to come."

The next few pages of the Files are illegible, but the next readable chapter starts with the word PLAGUES in huge letters.

As the plagues began, an hysterical debate began between various Jewish slave factions. Some people screamed to Moses, "What are you doing? — this is only going to make things worse! Do you have any idea what the repercussions of this terror will be?! We'll never get out of here! Not only with they throw the first-born into the river; they're going to kill all of us! Leave us alone and let us just continue to live!"

And so it continued, plague after plague, with Moses and Aharon occasionally having to take cover from those demanding, time and time again, that they be immediately replaced with new leadership. As the plagues became harsher and harsher, so too was the opposition to the leaders. The Jewish Slaves Gazette headlined: HOW MANY PLAGUES WILL IT TAKE TIL THEY UNDERSTAND? Of course, this question was pointed not at Pharaoh, rather at Moses and Aharon.

Moses, despondent, with little strength left, told Aharon that he was leaving for a few days to take a walk in desert and perhaps confer with the Almighty, in an attempt to decide what to do. He told Aharon to set up a meeting with the opposition that could take place upon his return. Then he took off, as fast as his feet would take him.

Moses walked and walked, losing himself deep in the desert. The entire time he never stopped talking, praying, pleading, with G-d to help him, to show him the way. "Should I resign, should I form a coalition with them and bring a few with me to the next meeting with Pharaoh, what should I do?"

Night fell, stars glittered and rays of moonlight shined down, illuminating the rocky, sandy terrain. And that's when it happened.

The images were blurry yet clear at the same time. People, men, women, children, tens, hundreds, thousands of people, Moses felt like he could almost touch them, yet they flew past him so fast. And they all had one thing in common: they all stared at Moses, with a deep piercing look emanating from their eyes.

The words exploded from his mouth: "My Dear G-d, who are they, why are they looking at me like that?"

And Moses continued peering into the hole in the sky, seeing fire and destruction, exile, return and exile, wanderings through foreign lands, inquisitions, Holocaust. And the Jews just continued staring at him. And he saw Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, David and Shlomo, the Caves at Machpela, Rachel in Bethlehem, Joseph in Shechem and the Temple in Jerusalem. He saw the foreigners and the Jews, and the conflicts and the questions, the weddings and the funerals, the laughter and the tears, and the Jews kept soaring past him, eyes glaring into his eyes.And the voice faded away. And Moses suddenly saw all the millions and millions of souls lining up, as a huge group, one after the other, all staring at him. And Moses took a deep breath, stared back and said, "Yes My G-d, I promise, I will do what is right, I will never let my People down, I will never forsake My G-d — I believe, I believe, I believe."

And that being said, all the millions of souls stopped staring and began smiling and cheering and reciting: We believe, we believe, we believe: we will never forsake our People, we will never forsake our G-d. Shema Yisrael, HaShem Elokaynu, HaShem Echad."

And the great window closed, and the sky blacked again, for a moment, and then it was morning, the light of day brightened the sky, Moses returned, and, well, the rest is history.

But it wasn't finished yet. There was one page left, I turned to the last page and could not believe my eyes:

"You, who are reading this today, must bring this to the attention of one Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of the State of Israel, of the Jewish people:

Binyamin Netanyahu: do not turn your greatest victory into failure! Do not allow the Datans and Avirams of today to destroy your triumph. Stand tall, look into the eyes of your people, not only those living today, but those who have been Am Yisrael for over 3,300 years and those who will be Am Yisrael for the next thousands of years, and say to them: I will never forsake my people, I will never forsake my land, I will never forsake my G-d.

Look every 'world leader' in the eye, the righteous and the evil, and repeat, again and again: I will never forsake my people, I will never forsake my land, I will never forsake my G-d.

I will not forsake Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Sarah, Rivka, Rachel and Leah, Joseph, David and Shlomo, I will not forsake the Jews of all generations. I will not forsake Hebron, I will not forsake, Tel Aviv or Beer Sheva, I will not forsake Haifa, I will not forsake Yerushalayim, I will never forsake Eretz Yisrael.

Binyamin Netanyahu, You will believe, the people will believe and you will all be privileged to see and witness the great Hand of G-d, as did Moses, so many years ago.

So end The Moses Files.


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

To Go To Top

Posted by Avi Yellin, March 25, 2010.

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) revealed in a January report that was updated recently that the government of Israel has been concealing a change in arms policy by the United States against the Jewish state. The Institute further stated that the Likud-led government of Binyamin Netanyahu has also refrained from protesting massive American weapons sales to Arab states in the region, an initiative that has eroded Israel's military edge over its neighbors.

The Institute reports that over the last year, the Obama administration has refused to approve any major Israeli weapons requests. Government sources asserted that the refusal represents a new White House policy to link arms sales to the Jewish state with the Netanyahu government's willingness to submit on Washington's demands that Israel surrender Judea, Samaria and most of Jerusalem to the American-backed Palestinian Authority.

Key weapons denied

The report revealed that the White House has so far blocked key weapons projects and upgrades for Israel, rejecting requests for AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters while approving advanced F-16 multi-role fighters for Egypt. Israel has meanwhile refrained from objecting to American plans to sell F-16s, Harpoon Block 2 anti-ship missiles, Hellfire air-to-ground missiles, fast attack craft and helicopters to the Egyptians. In addition to the advanced weapons sold to Egypt, Washington has also approved more than $10 billion worth of arms sales to Arab League states, including Kuwait, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

"Indeed, Israel's request for six AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters was blocked by the Obama Administration in June — the same time the Egyptian sale was approved," the JINSA report stated.

According to the report, the failure to sponsor Israel's qualitative edge, which violates a pledge given more than 40 years ago to maintain Israel's military superiority over its neighbors, began not with Obama but under the previous administration of President George W. Bush. "The concept of the Qualitative Military Edge failed to keep up with the changes in U.S. arms sales and training policy over the decades." Israel has to now stay ahead through other means.

Shift in 2004

A major U.S. policy shift came in 2004, when the Bush Administration needed Gulf Arab help for the American-led invasion of Iraq — particularly after Turkey denied Bush entrance into Iraq from the north — and wanted to bolster Washington's influence and ability to deal with regional problems.

JINSA dismissed Israeli government claims that the White House was ready to address the erosion of Israel's defensive capabilities. The Institute said the January 2010 visit by U.S. National Security Advisor James Jones did not concern the Washington's pledge to Israel's qualitative military edge but was to push Israel into making further concessions to the Fatah-led PA.

According to the report, the U.S. aid to Arab states has hampered Israeli military cooperation with Washington. More than 20 years ago, the Israel Air Force stopped participating in American sponsored regional exercises in order to prevent the leakage of combat tactics.

Avi Yellin writes for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Sheridan Neimark, March 25, 2010.

Peace negotiations with the moderate who?

(IsraelNN.com) Senior members of Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah have announced that their group will never recognize Israel, and will continue to call for war against Israel. "Fatah does not recognize Israel's right to exist, nor have we ever asked others to do so," said senior Fatah member Rafik Natsheh, a close associate of Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Media reports, according to which Fatah has recognized Israel and has called on Hamas to do the same, are false, Natsheh said in an interview with the pan-Arab daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi. "It's all media nonsense. We don't ask other factions to recognize Israel; we ourselves do not recognize Israel," he said.

Fatah controls the PA in Judea and Samaria, and is the party of Abbas. Unlike the rival breakaway PA led by Hamas in Gaza, the Fatah-led PA has agreed to recognize Israel, although it will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. [the Fatah-led PA recognizes Israel, but not the Fatah itself, kind of like having your cake and eating it]

The PA recognizes Israel because if it did not, it would not be able to "serve the Palestinian people," Natsheh explained. However, Fatah does not have such constraints.

Not only will Fatah never recognize Israel, but it will never end its call for armed struggle against Israel, he said. "Let those who are deluding themselves hear: this will never happen," he said.

A second senior Fatah member, Azzam el-Ahmed, agreed that Fatah would not drop its call to wage war on Israel.

Natsheh and Ahmed gave interviews in advance of the Fatah general assembly in early August, in which the organization will meet to discuss its goals and to hold elections. The meeting will be the first in approximately 20 years.

http://therealist.net/2009/03/18/ senior-fatah-leader-says-does-not-recognize-israel/

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ News/News.aspx/132544

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/ view.answers.php?questionID=000393

Contact Sheridan by email at sneimark@browdyneimark.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel's Academia Monitor, March 25, 2010.

This was written by Jack E. Friedman, Ph.D.


During the period Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was pursuing negotiations between Israel and the Arabs, he is said to have made a visit to the Washington zoo. The director, flattered by the presence of his distinguished guest, showed him around, stopping at an enclosure where a lion and a lamb were reposing peacefully. Amazed by the utopian scene, Kissinger asked his host, "Do they really coexist in harmony?" "They do indeed," the director replied, "except that periodically we have to replace the lamb."

Haaretz columnist Zvi Bar'el clearly did not have this anecdote — or its lesson — in mind in his take on a survey of the views of Israeli high-schoolers about their attitudes toward the State of Israel, including Israeli-Arab rights ("Israel demands peace from Palestinians as its own racism spreads," Haaretz, March 14.

The survey that provoked Bar'el's commentary was commissioned by the Maagar Mochot research organization. As reported in Haaretz on March 3
[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155627.html], its findings were presented at a Tel Aviv University symposium by, among others, TAU professor of psychology Daniel Bar-Tal.

The results of the survey, which sampled more than 500 Jewish and Arab students at various Israeli high schools, are sobering. While an overwhelming majority expressed a desire to enlist in the IDF, almost half — and a considerably higher percentage among religious respondents — said they would refuse orders to evacuate outposts and settlements. Nearly one third replied that they would reject military service beyond the Green Line. Additionally, as reported in the March 3rd Haaretz article, more than half the students would deny Arabs the right for election to the Knesset. In presenting these data, Professor Bar-Tal laments that "Jewish youth have not internalized basic democratic values." And he takes particular aim at the attitudes of the religious cohort in the survey: "There is a combination of fundamentalism, nationalism [!], and racism in the worldview of religious youth."

The survey results and Bar-Tal's readiness to impugn the views of Israeli youth — with no discussion of the sentiments underlying them — are fodder to Zvi Bar'el. In a piece dripping with sarcasm, the columnist draws a parallel between the mistrust that about half the students display toward Israeli Arabs and a litany of alleged Arab grievances against Israel. Referring to measures taken by Israel to monitor Palestinian incitement, he writes: "After all, what do we care about construction in Jerusalem, Efrat or Ramat Shlomo, or about checkpoints, arrests, home demolitions, the army's 'neighbor policy,' bone breaking, land appropriation or the blockade of 1.5 million Arabs in Gaza?"

Toward the end of the article, Bar'el links the findings of the survey to the Israeli hope that the Palestinians will be "convince[d]...to create a 'culture of peace.' With whom exactly are they expected to build such a culture?" he asks rhetorically. "With Israel's young generation, which sees Israeli Arabs as a dangerous foe from whom democratic rights should be withheld? With inciters who see an Arab film director [Scandar Copti, Ajami], or the Jewish intellectuals who support him, as enemies of the state?"

Had Bar'el, or Bar-Tal, been thinking of Kissinger's likely apocryphal encounter in the Washington zoo — they might have recommended that Israel replenish its herd of innocent — and unsuspecting — lambs.

Contact Israel Academia Monitor by email at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 25, 2010.

Before beginning news: If you are now receiving my postings again, after a period of time when nothing was coming through to you (and you haven't already let me know), please tell me now by clicking here: akushner18@gmail.com and writing in the subject line "Received your March 25 post."

It's just possible that we're on the way to overcoming the problem.


Deplorable. What better word for the current situation?

Two days ago, Netanyahu met with Obama in Washington, and Netanyahu then requested a second consultation. Apparently to clarify certain matters or, you should excuse the expression, provide justification for things we are doing. It all took place in a black-out, with no joint statement released, no press conference. Obama was showing his royal ire, cold shouldering our prime minister.

Jackson Diehl, writing in The Washington Post, described the situation thus:

"Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship that already was at its lowest point in two decades. Tuesday night the White House refused to allow non-official photographers record the president's meeting with Netanyahu; no statement was issued afterward. Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length. That is something the rest of the world will be quick to notice and respond to. Just like the Palestinians, European governments cannot be more friendly to an Israeli leader than the United States."


Anyone who imagines that this was done by Obama out of a sincere effort to get Israel to be on board for a constructive "peace process" can think again. There is malice inherent in his approach: in his belittling of the only democracy and sincere ally the US has in the Middle East, we see a consciously destructive stance.

Diehl refers to one element of this with regard to Europeans picking up on the US attitude towards Israel (see below), but even more so is this the case with the Palestinian Arabs, and Arabs more generally.

In line with previous statements, Abbas has now declared that he's following the interaction between Obama and Netanyahu, and is not convinced that anything meaningful is happening. Thus he is not prepared to participate in negotiations.

Translation: Hey, Obama is doing a great job of taking down Netanyahu, so why should I risk having to make concessions in negotiations when we can continue the way it's going.

Alternate translation: I really really am not interested in negotiations now, and it's so great that Obama is taking this tough stance with Netanyahu and giving me a pass.

On this, see Steven Pollard, writing in the Guardian, who suggests that "Palestinian demands on Jerusalem are a ruse to end negotiations."
http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/commentisfree/2010/ mar/19/israel-palestinian-settlements-talks-jerusalem


Following his tense meetings with Obama, Netanyahu delayed his return to Israel and huddled in the Israel Embassy with key advisors who had accompanied him and Israeli ambassador Michael Oren. As news reports had it, they were engaged in a fevered pitch of creative thinking in order to devise a plan to be presented to Obama that would permit "proximity" negotiations to begin. Multiple sources suggested that we were supposed to deliver a signed document that would commit us to certain matters. As always and ever, "trust building" gestures were expected.

All of this put a considerable knot in my stomach. The suggestion, once again, that "peace" depended on us and us alone, and required ever more concessions from us, is vile.

An article in the JPost spoke about drafting of "a document outlining Israeli commitments and obligations to launch proximity talks with the Palestinians." And it's here that I confess to being totally mystified. How can Israel, unilaterally, "launch" talks?

Consider, as well, the statement of Jordan's King Abdullah (echoing Obama's tone): "Israel is playing with fire" and "must decide if it wants war or peace." And what, pray tell, "must" Abbas do?


Israeli diplomatic staff met with American officials last night in an attempt to iron out disagreements. Originally it was said that Netanyahu was hoping to achieve a situation of increased US-Israeli accord before leaving the US.

But at the end of the day (or night), it was announced that Netanyahu would be seeking the counsel and approval of his inner cabinet of seven here, before formally agreeing to anything. And so he has come home. Now we're being told that the inner cabinet would be meeting tomorrow and not tonight, as originally announced. He will be presenting the American demands and his responses.


Beyond this point, I, along with a whole lot of others, must move into the realm of speculation. Those on the inside are particularly tight-lipped at present; it is near impossible to determine what Netanyahu said to Obama, and what he will be asking his inner cabinet to approve.

I've encountered analytic interpretations of what's going on that in some cases are diametrically opposed. There is one opinion that says telling the Americans that he had to seek the approval of his cabinet was merely Netanyahu's out on something that he didn't want to do anyway. (A good cop-bad cop routine.) The reverse opinion says that since Netanyahu already told the Americans what he would be asking his cabinet to approve, it's as good as a done deal even if it is not formal yet.

Our prime minister could say, "Look guys, I know you won't like this, and it's OK. I'm not too keen on it myself." Or he could threaten that there will be hell to pay for our country if they don't sign on.


Two things do seem fairly obvious. One is that the point of greatest danger for Netanyahu was when he was in the US, in unfriendly territory and under direct duress. He's home now, among friends ready to circle the wagons — and in this environment, the pressure to give what Obama wants is diminished.

The second is that Israeli backs are stiffened by the heavy-handed and rude tactics of Obama. Unless I'm very mistaken (or Netanyahu shares with them some genuinely serious repercussions of refusal to accept what was discussed with the Americans), the inner cabinet is not likely to go along.

According to YNet, in telephone conversation when Netanyahu was in Washington, Foreign Minister Lieberman urged him to come home without having signed anything.

~~~~~~~~~~ The issue at the heart of this current state of affairs is Jerusalem, and our right to build in our capital city.

In days past, I've alluded to unconfirmed rumors regarding under-the-table understandings Netanyahu made with regard to construction in Jerusalem. I've picked up all sorts of ideas — from a promise by Netanyahu that he would run all construction plans by the Americans before proceeding, to the possibility that he would de facto delay Jerusalem construction without formally freezing it.

These various hints unsettled me, because it's all too obvious that what's on the surface may be only a part of what has transpired. That is, I gave the rumors, or their possibility, some limited credence. But the virulence of the current state of US-Israeli affairs leads me to believe that some quiet deal on Jerusalem has not been struck at all.

The truth of the matter should become obvious in time: we'll know if building is going on, permits are being signed, or not.


Eli Yeshai (Shas), Interior Minister, has said that he thanks Heaven for allowing him to be Interior Ministry and have the right to approve thousands of new housing units to be constructed.

He maintains that the government will continue to advance construction projects in Jerusalem, and there will be no moratorium in building.

Words. May we see their actualization.


One particular bone of contention, sparking American demands that we "explain," was an announcement regarding 20 new apartments to be built in the Shimon HaTzadik (Sheikh Jarrah) neighborhood — especially as the announcement on this was said to have been made in the wake of the flap over Ramat Shlomo building and just as Netanyahu was supposed to meet with Obama.

This involves the Shepherd Hotel project, and a statement released by the Jerusalem municipality makes it clear what the distortions were regarding this project, and what the rush to foment tensions:

"The report is distorted and is meant to stir up a provocation during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit in Washington.The plan was approved in July 2009 by the local planning committee. Its approval was published in the media at the time. The landowners only paid the fees on March 15th, 2010 and approval was granted automatically after that."

Israel National News suggests the possibility (not far-fetched in my opinion) that parties eager to damage or weaken Netanyahu leaked the fact of technical approvals on building projects — first in Ramat Shlomo and then here — deliberately making matters seem like more than they were. I will not belabor here thoughts on who might be involved, but I will mention that one theory has it that the goal is to make it necessary for Netanyahu to take Livni's Kadima party into the coalition.

What particularly distressed me was that I read that Netanyahu and his team went to the meetings with the Americans with a chart, with time lines and an outline of bureaucratic processes, in an effort to explain housing approval procedures. Terribly demeaning. How much do we, as a sovereign nation, have an obligation to justify ourselves?


Something else that has been greatly distorted in the press has been the question of what General Petraeus actually did or did not say regarding the linkage between US efforts with Iran, or in Afghanistan, and Israeli "obstinacy" in making peace. I offer here a link to a piece that carries a denial directly by the general regarding what he was alleged to have said:
http://spectator.org:80/archives/2010/03/25/ petraeus-sets-the-record-strai


I alluded above to the influence Obama likely has on how European nations are prepared to treat Israel. The UK has just expelled an Israeli diplomat, someone with Mossad connections, as a protest against Israel (and the Mossad) for allegedly using forged UK passports in the assassination of Hamas terrorist Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai. Linkage of Israel to this assassination has never been documented, but this seems not to bother British officials.

As we would say here: Lo yafeh. Not nice.

It's worth noting that the British values are so skewed that the matter of the passports takes precedence over the possibility that Israel eliminated someone who deserved mightily to be eliminated.

Arlene Kushner is Senior Analyst for the Center for Near East Policy Research in Jerusalem. Contact her at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Gamal Scharoubim, March 25, 2010.

His name is certainly fitting. He keeps warning the West about the dangers of a hateful cult created by a pretender who never knew God or seen Gabriel the Archangel. His problem was, he came from a poor destitute branch of Sadducee Qureish while his half uncles were filty wealthy as we say to day. Because of his hostile attitude towards them they dropped him and ignored him. He turned to piracy to snatch anything he can snatch including people for ransom. And they want me to believe that he is the most honorable of God's creation? Not even after I die I will not believe this farce.

Contact Gamal Scharoubim by email at scharoubim@sbcglobal.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 25, 2010.

"Israel Absorbs Twin Rebukes From Top Allies" is the New York Times headline of 3/24/10.

In the British Parliament, Foreign Minister Millibrand said he had expelled an Israeli diplomat, presumably the head of the Mossad unit there. Britain has accepted Dubai claims that the Mossad used forged British passports in its execution of a Hamas arms-smuggling terrorist in Dubai, and is indignant about it. Millibrand said that for a friendly country, such as Israel to exploit British passports "adds insult to injury."

Some Members of Parliament urged criminal prosecution of the Mossad agents and said Israel is becoming a rogue country. Other officials suggest that Britain let the issue fade, out of friendship and joint efforts to fight against terrorism.

The government of Israel usually neither confirms nor denies responsibility for actions, but did assert that Britain did not present it with concrete evidence. Israel did not take the usual retaliatory measure of expelling a British diplomat (Helene Cooper, John F. Burns, 3/24, A1).

Tit-for-tat diplomatic expulsions seem childish.

Britain is becoming a rogue country. It is the center of Radical Muslim plotting of terrorism. It does little to stop it except for police work, and does much to appease and facilitate the Islamists.

Instead of following international law and helping to apprehend and eliminate certain terrorists, it acts indignant when a country attacked by such terrorists takes wartime measures against them. Israel did not insult nor injure Britain, but Britain shames itself.

Nor is Britain a top ally of Israel. The term, "ally," is liberally plastered over countries like paperhangers on a new fence marked "Post No Bills." Britain is one of Israel's chief enemies, not that Israel considers Britain an enemy or wants any enemies. Consider the brief history of their relations:

(1) Britain facilitated the Holocaust by violating the Palestine Mandate to bar most Jewish immigration into Palestine, including when the Nazis were exterminating millions of Jews. Britain and the U.S. held phony refugee conferences to pretend concern, but did not bring up the issue of Jewish refugees or relief for them.

(2) Jewish nationalists (not Haganah) forced Britain to relinquish its Mandatory authority, liberating their people from British repression.

(3) When the Jewish Agency was about to declare independence for Israel, Britain turned forts over to Palestinian Arabs seeking to exterminate the Jews there.

(4) Britain armed Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan, and British officers led Jordan's Arab Legion in an invasion of the new Jewish state. If I recall, it was at the end of that war that Britain sent Spitfires to attack Israeli planes, and the Israeli Air Force shot six down.

(5) Now Britain has laws that enable Radical Muslims to petition courts to arrest Israeli officials on phony accusations of war crimes. Britain does not particularly object to actual war crimes by Arabs against Israel.

(6) The boycott-Israel movement is strong in Britain, facilitated by the government.


The U.S. Defense Dept. is hiring contractors to train locals. The government finds its troops stretched out in their combined role of combat and nation-building. African countries that appear close to failing could become more havens for terrorists. Failure may be headed off by training their criminal justice departments and by economic training. The idea is of a stitch in time.

Formerly, such tasks were done by small companies or organizations, not aiming to please stockholders. Now the U.S. intends pouring large sums into the mission. That means hiring large defense contractors, such as Lockheed.

Questions are whether the large defense contractors would be adept at training rather than manufacturing weapons, whether they would train well or just pass recruits through a mill, and whether they would commit to a sufficiently long effort (August Cole, Wall St. J., 3/23, A1).

Has the Pentagon adequately evaluated its use of contractors in Iraq? We hear of some corruption and some abuses. Were the contractors used to evade U.S. law and military rules? How much of that was there, compared with the total effort? Were the contractors properly supervised? Did the practice work well overseas? Were the contractors more adaptable than government employees would be? What did the U.S. learn about the use of contractors? Is the U.S. ready to go into this new venture? Should it do it on a pilot project basis or full scale?

We were told that the Pentagon hired contractors to help with the war in Iraq, because the Army was too small. If the U.S. had the money for contractors, wouldn't it have had the money for enlarging the Army?


where Arab rocket killed Thai worker in Israel (A.P./Tsafrir Abayov)

A former deputy division commander during combat in Gaza, Colonel (ret.) Rabbi Moshe Hager, thinks that Israeli Defense Forces may have to re-enter Gaza and stay. He explains this by comparing Gaza with Judea-Samaria.

When the IDF was not patrolling Judea-Samaria much, terrorists fired rockets into Israel. The IDF re-entered Judea-Samaria and put the terrorists down. They still patrol it, constantly arresting terrorists and keeping them off balance.

By contrast, Gaza was not committing significant terrorism when Israeli communities and forces were inside. As soon as they left, the Arabs rebuilt terrorist forces. They fired thousands of rockets into Israel. Finally, the IDF re-entered Gaza. It did not do a thorough job; it soon left. Now Hamas is rebuilding its forces with more accurate rockets. Hence the Colonel's conclusion.

Hager draws another comparison. The arms that were given to Fatah in Gaza all fell into the hands of Hamas. He warns that the arms given to the Fatah forces that the U.S. is training in Judea-Samaria will fall into Hamas' hands (Arutz-7, 3/24).

Hamas boasts that it will seize those arms, too. Even if it doesn't, those arms in Fatah hands would be turned against Israel. This has happened before. Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority, threatens to do it again, if negotiations don't go his way. Negotiations will not go his way. His demands would render Israel vulnerable to conquest. He therefore would go to war then, if not sooner — he also is threatening a third Intifada. Hardly the man of peace that Secretary of State depicts him as!

Abbas does not literally threaten the Intifada. He accomplishes the threat by not saying he would give the order, but by saying that unless Israel accedes to certain demands, an Intifada will break out. "Break out," like spontaneous combustion? No, he and his staff would rouse the rabble to it. Arafat, father of modern terrorism, his comrade of 30 years, taught him that technique.

Warnings like Hager's were issued for years, before the last Gaza operation. The longer the government took to heed them, the greater the damage inflicted on Israel and more acute the terrorist menace. Will Israel wait too long, again? Will Israel be cowed by the UN gang-up on Israel? Will Israel be ready to explain to the word Hamas offenses and Israeli justification, before new slanders circulate?

Current Israeli retaliation does not eliminate the menace.


A new film exposes the anti-Zionism and antisemitism expanding on North American campuses.

The film covers financial connections between: (1) The Muslim Students Association and the [terrorist] Muslim brotherhood; (2) Middle Eastern Studies Departments and supportive foreign Arab states; and (3) Pro-Palestinian Authority indoctrination disseminated by those Departments

"Crossing the Line: The Intifada Comes to Campus is produced by filmmaker Raphael Shore, directed by Wayne Kopping and distributed by Imagination Productions. Shore also produced the critically acclaimed Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West and The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision for America."

The film shows prominent people, campus activists, and incidents experienced by students who oppose bias against Israel.

How does one distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitism? The film utilizes Natan Sharansky's test: De-legitimization, Double standard, and Demonization of Israel "in posters, media, speeches, classroom discussions, school events or any other communications or activities relating to Israel." (Arutz-7, 3/24.)


First the earthquake struck, then terrorists did (A.P./Naveed Sultan)

Pakistan has sent the U.S. a 50-page, comprehensive request for aid, not all of it military. The implication is that it would agree to dislodge the Taliban from their bases in Pakistan, where they rest from the war in Afghanistan and then re-cross the border.

The question is whether Pakistan is seeking arms against India (Matthew Rosenberg, Peter Siegel, Wall St. J., 3/23, A12).


Somali Chief Justice Mohamad Omar Farah (AP/Khalil Senosi)

The tide is turning against the jihadists in Somalia, as a backlash develops. Radical Islamic militias chopped off peoples hands, stoned people to death, have taken to suicide bombing, and banned music, TV, and bras.

The people of Somalia reject the oppression and backwardness of the Radicals' seventh century version of Islam. Women subject to being whipped have been informing on the terrorists. The central government, after being driven back into a portion of its capital, just like the U.S. forces once driven back into the southern tip of S. Korea, now plan a major offensive. The US. is helping with intelligence and logistics (Geoffrey Gettleman, NY Times, 3/24, A1).

The photo had a note that 10 Somali judges were murdered in four years.

Radical Islam threatens the world, but the Muslim people may save the world.


Although the Taliban have been decimated in Afghanistan, they still control much of it at night.

That control is manifested in the Taliban setting a curfew for operation of cell phone lines. The three cell phone companies comply. When they defied the Taliban, the Taliban destroyed some of their $400,000 towers and killed some of their staff. The companies do not feel that the presence of U.S. and government troops sufficiently protects them.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald Steinberg, March 25, 2010.

This year, in reciting the Passover story and Exodus from Egypt, I suggest extending the discussion to include stories that might have been featured in newspapers, blogs, and nightly news broadcasts of 4,000 years ago (give or take a few centuries).

In this not-so-imaginary world, the headlines and video clips highlight stark images of blood flowing in the Nile and the devastation from frogs, boils, locusts and other plagues. The BBC sends a team of reporters and producers to document the devastation in Egypt for a 10-part series — one for each plague. In Canada, daily editorials in the Toronto Star attack the government for its pro-Israelite ideology, and the CBC Radio team of Carol Off and Barbara Budd hold moving interviews with carefully chosen Egyptian victims, reached in their servant-less Cairo villas.

These media stories are accompanied by United Nations Human Rights Council resolutions condemning the Israelites for brutal violations of international law and the disproportionate use of force. (European, accompanied by some Canadian diplomats, are seen squirming awkwardly in their seats and wagging their fingers at the Israelite delegation.)

In parallel, the leaders of moral non-governmental superpowers and watchdog groups, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, hold press conferences and give sage-sounding interviews to voice their condemnations, while demanding independent investigations and prosecution of Moses. HRW's Middle East division publishes glossy research reports filled with Egyptian eyewitness testimony and characterizing each of the 10 plagues as collective punishment, a war crime on an unprecedented scale. The Richard Goldstone of the time is appointed to head a committee that collects all of these NGO claims into a United Nations report for use in the case against Moses, Aaron and the 70 Israelite leaders.

Nowhere in these reports is there any mention of the almost 400 years of slavery and brutal treatment that preceded the plagues and march to freedom, with little more than hard crackers for food. Instead, in this narrative, the Israelites are presented as foreign occupiers who conspired with Joseph to steal the land of Goshen from the natives. The record of failed negotiations, which could have ended the conflict peacefully, is completely erased, as are Pharoah's trail of broken promises (peace breakthroughs of the time) to let the Israelites go.

On university campuses, NGO activists mark Israelite Apartheid Week (actually two weeks, but who pays attention to such details?). Frogs and red water are brought in to simulate the suffering caused by the plagues, and mock trials are held, which start with the conclusion that Moses is guilty. At York University, speakers at conferences and mass rallies call for a campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions to punish and isolate the Israelites.

Then, as now, these condemnations and activities are supported by a small but noisy group of disgruntled Israelites, motivated by an exaggerated sense of self-importance and the belief that a right-wing conspiracy led by Moses is responsible for all of the problems. Through grants provided by the New Israelite Fund, these "independent voices" join the demands that the Israelites return to Egypt immediately, apologize and provide compensation for damages.

And these problems did not end with the parting of the Red Sea, or Sea of Reeds, and the drowning of Pharoah's army (another war crime) in hot pursuit of the runaway slaves.

Later, in the desert, as the Israelites prepared for returning to their homeland in the Land of Israel, first Moses and then, 39 years later, Joshua dispatched groups of spies to prepare for the invasion. The biblical text provides many details of these complex intelligence operations, including the role of double agents, but it doesn't describe the nature of the passports they used, or whether they were disguised. Today, this action would have led to pompous denunciations about the invasion of Jericho's sovereignty, and calls for more investigations.

Thus, as our generation struggles for justice, as did our ancestors, the Passover story and the Exodus remain very relevant. The names and details may change, but the overall situation has a great deal to teach us, 4,000 years later.

Gerald Steinberg, a professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, is president of NGO Monitor.

This article appeared March 18, 2010 in The Canadian Jewish News
(wwww.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=18740&Itemid=86).

To Go To Top

Posted by Rock Peters, March 25, 2010.

"While America slept
Sharia steadily crept
one day Americans were awaken
and found their liberties had all been taken
every sensible warnings they had ignored
in liberal complacency they just snored
now the U.S. Constitution is no more
in it's place is Sharia Law
and today in the USA women can be publicly beaten
if their husbands catch them cheatin'
Gays are prosecuted
and legally executed
the Statue of Liberty was destroyed
gone is the "American Freedom" we once enjoyed
churches and synagogues are now torched and burned
because Americans never learned
it was too late
before they discovered
the Islamic religion really teaches HATE
and the truth that:
Islam is NOT the "religion of peace!"

"The Muslim terrorists have hijacked Islam. Islam is a religion of peace!" was the liberal 'politically correct spin' after the September 11th Muslim terrorist attack on America. Amazingly after all the inhuman, horrific and murderous acts Muslim terrorists have committed since 9/11 this insanity and vile corruption of the truth remains unchanged. The blatant falsehood and extraordinary ignorance of a "non-violent Islam" is still being preached and promoted unabashedly in a 'droning mindless mantra' by the Left to this day. Barack Obama proclaims the peaceful virtues of Islam as he globe trots around the world. In speeches, Obama refers to the Koran as the 'holy Koran." The Koran is holy? Nothing could be further from the truth. I have read the Koran many, many times and I have read Hitler's "Mein Kampf " and the Muslim Koran is without a doubt a much more violent and evil book than the Nazi's, "Mien Kampf." If America and the West continue to commit suicide by surrendering our Judeo-Christian values to liberal moral relativism and multi-culturalism and we persist in allowing the undermining of our society and culture by the infiltration of "creeping Sharia" it will result in the end of Western Civilization. Islamic law means dhimmitude for non-Muslims which will make the Dark Ages seem like the Renaissance. Wake up America and join the resistance at WWW.GODSAVEUSA.COM

Rock Peters is an author, songwriter, poet and patriot. His multimedia website — www.godsaveusa.com — is dedicated to fighting Muslim terrorism. It is both factual and attractive. Contact him at rockpeters@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shula Romano Horing, March 24, 2010.

Despite Benjamin Netanyahu's repeated apologies over the timing of Israeli's announcement of plans to build 1,600 new housing units in North Jerusalem, during Vice President Biden's Israeli visit, the Obama administration, led personally by Obama himself, have not let go of the issue, and have been repeatedly publicly reprimanding and even " condemning" Israel.

Since the neighborhood is in Jerusalem and the November 25, 2009 Nehanyahu — Obama agreement was for a 10 month Israeli construction freeze on West bank Jewish settlements, excluding Jerusalem, it seems puzzling that Obama would react so strongly to a bureaucrat gaffe by a local planning board when existential issues are at stake in the Middle east.

Apparently the president wished to kill two birds with one stone when he chose to turn a bureaucratic blunder into a public crisis in US — Israeli Relations.

The first goal appears to be Obama's continuous self anointed "messianic "efforts to rehabilitate the tarnished image of Islam in the eyes of Americans and to heal the breach between Islam and the West by adopting a strategy of engagement with them including Islamist rogue states like Iran and Syria. But Obama, like much of the Western vocal elite of policy makers, believes Israel is the main problem preventing Arab rulers and Islamist revolutionaries from loving the west because of Israel's alleged attempts to torpedo the so called peace talks.

Therefore, to achieve his goal Obama needed first to undermine the alliance between the US and the Jewish state in the eyes of the American people who seems to disagree with the elite by strongly favoring democratic Israel over the mostly totalitarian Moslem world.

In Gallup's latest poll published in the beginning of March, 67% of the American people were favorable toward Israel which ranked it as the fifth most popular country after Britain, Canada, Japan and Germany. By contrast only 20% were favorable to the Palestinians.

The president has been determined since he came to power to weaken this favorable perception by the American masses by constantly provoking crisis, public confrontation, and humiliation of Netanyahu and even spreading false accusations, such as the one claimed by Biden that Israel's construction in Jerusalem "endangers the lives of American soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan".

The second reason seems to be Obama's attempt to divert attention from his 14 month old failed policy of engagement with Iran concerning the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program and to warn Israel against an attack on Iran nuclear reactors without his permission which will never be given. Obama does not believe in military solutions and especially one against a Muslim state and has resigned himself to a nuclear Iran which he believes can be contained.

Israel strongly disagrees. Israel is impatiently waiting for permission and assistance from Obama to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Over the last few months many American officials have visited Israel to warn against a military attack against Iran. It is rumored that, prior to the public confrontation, Netanyahu discussed with Biden the possibility of a US blockade against Iran as a way to push it to stop its nuclear program. It seems Obama felt Israel was not listening and wanted it to understand that if he is willing to put the US-Israel alliance at risk for a timing blunder, Israel should just imagine what the US reaction would be for attacking Iran without permission.

By now it seems obvious that Obama is not President Bush or Clinton. He talks the talk but does not walk the walk. Even though he and his advisors talk about the special relationship between Israel and the US, and the US commitment to Israel's security, Obama does not appreciate or respect Israel as an ally or a friend. Otherwise it does not make sense for the President of the US to be personally involved in orchestrating a disproportionate response and harsh public confrontation with Israel over a bureaucratic gaff in the midst of a health care legislation struggle, high unemployment, deep recession, and terrorism wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While Biden seemed to accept Netanyahu's assurances and apology that he had been blindsided by the plan's approval, and that the construction was years away, the White House did not relent.

First, Biden kept Netanyahu waiting for their dinner at his residence for an hour and a half, drafting a reaction to the construction plan that began with the word " condemn". A vocabulary choice, that he made clear in his Tel Aviv University speech, was coordinated with US President Barak Obama himself. During the past 20 years no one can recall an instance of America condemning Israel and usually the US vetoes UN security Council resolution that use the word "condemn" against Israel. "Condemn" is a word usually reserved for North Korea, the Soviet Union and other evil, murderous dictatorships.

Then, Biden warned Israelis and Palestinians that "the US will continue to hold both sides accountable for any statements or any actions that inflames tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks".

But during the same visit of Biden to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, on Thursday, PA representatives and dozens of Palestinians students from the youth division of Fatah, the party led by the President Mahmoud Abbas, gathered to dedicate a public square in a town abutting Ramallah to a memory of a Dala Murgharbi, a woman who in 1978 led a squad to carry out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel's history. In the infamous Coastal Road Massacre 38 Israeli civilians including 13 children were killed along with a female American photographer. The PA representatives described the woman as a courageous fighter, a heroine and a martyr stating " she is a symbol for every Palestinian girl". Neither Biden or Obama condemned or even mentioned such flagrant anti Israel incitement in violation of all Oslo agreements.

When Biden left on late Thursday, he told reporters that he accepted Netanyahu's apology and that the crisis between US and Israel was behind them. However, the next day Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised the issue again and called Netanyahu by phone and for 45 minutes accused him of "insulting" the US, and " undermining the trust and confidence in the peace process, and America's interests". As Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes stated, Obama had approved the Clinton call, sitting with her during the weekly meeting Thursday to determine "the specific points she would be making to the Prime Minister'. In her call Hillary appeared to link US military support for Israel to the construction in East Jerusalem and she made clear that "the Israeli government needed to demonstrate, not just through words but through specific actions, that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process".

Such false accusations are truly insulting to Israel. Since Netanyahu came to power in February 2009, he agreed to commit his center — right coalition and for the first time his Likud party to acceptance of a Palestinian state; removed dozens of anti terror roadblock and checkpoints to ease the life for the Palestinians and assisted the West Bank economic development to the point where its gross domestic product is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year. He also agreed to the West bank construction freeze, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself termed "unprecedented" since no other previous Prime Minister agreed to such freeze including famous political doves, Peres and Rabin. Moreover, the refusal to freeze Jewish construction in Jerusalem areas that were always Jewish is consistent with 40 years of Israeli policy. During Obama's presidency Mahmoud Abbas has made no reciprocal gesture or concessions. As a matter fact since Obama's inauguration, Abbas has refused even to resume direct negotiations with Israel and has only agreed to be involved in indirect "proximity" talks.

Hillary Clinton's characterization of the Palestinian acceptance of such talks after 14 months of prodding as a "diplomatic achievement', that the Israel announcement was undermining, is quite pathetic. Since the Oslo agreement was signed in 1993 there have been numerous direct negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel. In 2008 alone, during the last year of President Bush, there were more than 250 direct meetings between the Palestinian and Israeli negotiators and December 2008 saw the last meeting of Abbas with an Israeli Prime Minister.

Moreover, Obama diversion strategy of confronting Israel and engaging Islamic rogue nations has been disastrous and not in the best interests of the United States.

The effort to prevent a nuclear Iran by appeasing the Iranian tyrants, and groveling for a dialogue has backfired with the clerics grip over the country stronger than ever and the regime much closer to possessing nuclear weapons. The deadlines set by Obama for crippling sanctions against Iran have long gone and Hillary is now speaking of June as time for another round of sanctions which both Russia and China warned they will veto. As a matter of fact, as recently as March 20, Russia snubbed American requests and stated their intention of starting up a new Russian built nuclear power plant in Bushehr, Iran.

Obama does not understand the dangers of his policy. Having a nuclear Iran is not only disastrous to Israel but also to the US and the World. Just imagine what would have happened if Hitler would have gotten a nuclear weapon before Germany was defeated militarily. Iran, just as Hitler at the time, has the design not only to kill Jews, but also to rule the world by controlling the oil rich Gulf Nations which control 50 percent of the world's oil supply. The promise of "containing" a nuclear Iran, by convincing them not to use the nuclear weapon, will not work since the threat of nuclear attack will be enough for Iran to dictate oil prices, as well as the oil supply to the US and Europe. Then, the only option available to the US will be to conquer Iran perhaps resulting in a nuclear war which could destroy the oil supply and many countries in the process.

Shoula Romano Horing is an Israeli born and raised, an attorney, a national speaker and a radio host in Kansas City Missouri.. Her e-mail address is Shoula1@aol.com; Her website is www.shoularomanohoring.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Mark Gold, March 24, 2010.

Unfortunately, today's ever less justified vitriolic criticism of Israel necessitates bringing back this late-19th century term of indictment. It is time to retire the largely politically correct yet fallacious mantra that most criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic. Because it is! Whether through ignorance or malevolence, most average everyday critics of Israel are anti-semitic by virtue of that criticism.

The Jewish community in particular has been careful not to levy unjustified charges of anti-semitism. But now it is clear that anti-semitism is flourishing, masquerading in the form of anti-Zionism and hatred of Israel. It is time to call it what it is.

As with anti-semitism over the eons, masses are led to it through ignorance. Perversely, anti-semitism may have become more widespread in recent years as misinformation rooted in an anti-Jewish and anti-Israel bias has been spread more widely and rapidly, courtesy of the information revolution, including, most notably, the internet.

Many eminent and articulate authors have written many eloquent and trenchant words exposing and documenting beyond doubt the double standards, hypocrisy, and mendacity — good indicators of anti-semitism — that are so common when it comes to many, but not all, discussions of Israel. These authors have also demonstrably shown that Natan Sharansky's test of Israel-related anti-semitism — double standards, demonization, and delegitimization — has readily been met. Sadly, these are staples of criticism of Israel today.

One of the anti-semites' buzzwords of criticism is that Israel's military actions in Gaza were "disproportionate." Yet Hamas was not stopped by Israel's actions and continued to fire rockets at Israel. Nor did it release its captive Israeli Gilad Shalit. Further, it even claimed "victory." So if Israel's actions were in any way inappropriately "disproportionate", it was that they were inadequate and insufficient to do the job — the opposite of what her detractors were saying in their anti-semitic accusations.

But all these defenses and explications documenting the anti-semitism in the world's attacks on Israel should not even be necessary — open manifestations of anti-semitism are staring in the face anybody willing to see them. For one obvious example, why else in the eyes of both Palestinian Arabs and those of most of the world must be all lands over which the Palestinian Arabs have sovereignty be Judenrein?

Further examples include Saudi, Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian textbooks that include overt anti-Jewish indoctrination. And of course, the terrorist ("militant" or "activist" to the news media) group Hamas that rules Gaza has an openly anti-semitic charter. For example, Article 7:

"The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and the trees will cry out: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.' "

Also, both of Gaza's neighboring states, Israel and Egypt, restrict crossing activity at their borders with it, a grievance of Hamas. While Hamas has fired thousands of rockets at Israel (the Jews), how many has it fired at Egypt (the Muslims) to "resist" its blockade? None, of course. Why not? Answer: Because Egypt is not a Jewish state.

While Hamas and its terrorist brethren take issue with Arab governments as well as Israel, the reason that Israel ranks highest among their targets is simply that it is a Jewish, not a Muslim, state. That's anti-semitism.

Israel's numerous Jewish hyper-critics must also be mentioned, but only to point out the context of the long history of this plague of self-loathing Jews. While obviously the ease of fitting in throughout most parts of the world is greatly facilitated by standing against Israel, I leave it to psychologists to further analyze the etiology of these individuals.

A major factor contributing to the prevalence of today's anti-semitism is that the very Palestinian Arabs who elected their terrorist leaders have managed to ingratiate themselves with much of the world. How they have done so is another story, but for here, chalk it up to fortuitous timing and tactics (for them), and a world with latent anti-semitic tendencies eager to adopt their anti-semitic narrative. How else to explain that simply being the enemies of the Jews would endear them to the world, above the cause of other desperate and more deserving peoples in Africa and Asia? (The Palestinian Arabs have won more per capita international aid, by far, than any other group. And, further, they have done so while incurring virtually no obligation to do anything in return.)

It is especially remarkable how they have been embraced in the West with such affection and with so little genuine rationale — despite the stated aspirations of Hamas, its fellow terrorist organizations, and its Iranian sponsors to subjugate to their Islamist rule not just Israel and the Jews, but the western world.

And then the West would hardly be in a position to worry about "disproportionate" Israeli actions. That is a remarkable irony. Love may not conquer all, but perhaps anti-semitism does?

Mark Gold does volunteer work on behalf of U.S. national security and Israel. His columns have been published by outlets including The Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, and The Jewish Press. He is retired from a career in the transportation industry and lives in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC. He blogs at http://markgold.wordpress.com/ Contact him by email at mgva@earthlink.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, March 24, 2010.

Ernst Kirchweger was murdered in Vienna on March 31, 1965. Almost 70 at the time, he had been a sailor in the Austro-Hungarian navy in World War I, and a Vienna socialist and then a communist after that. He was stronly anti-Nazi and spent time in a concentration camp during World War II. In 1965, he participated in a demonstration in Vienna against a notorious local anti-Semitic professor, one Taras Borodajkewycz. During the demonstration, Kirchweger was attacked and brutalized by a Neo-Nazi thug named Gunther Kumel (with the umlauts, he spells it Günther Kümel). Kirchweger (his last name means the weg of the church) died three days after the attack and Kumel spent ten months in prison for assault. 25,000 people attended Kirchweger's funeral.

So what became of the Nazi thug Gunther Kumel? The answer is that the very same Kumel is now an active Holocaust Denier and Neo-Nazi crank, spreading his filth about the web. Kumel has published a few of his items in English, including "The Myth of German Culpability," as well as web articles hailing Hitler as both a great leader and as a poor victim of persecution. Kumel has been involved in some fire bombing incidents, and there are several entries that mention him and his violence in the German Wikipedia.

Three weeks ago, Kumel decided to make Rachel Corrie his personal cause. Kumel writes sometimes for the American Neo-Nazi Holocaust Denial web site "Rense.com." That site is run by shlock radio announcer Jeff Rense, who divides his time between Holocaust Denial and chasing UFOs. The Rense.com web site is one of the major Neo-Nazi sites in the world. It routinely carries articles insisting that no Jews were ever murdered at Auschwitz and that the Holocaust is all a hoax invented by Zionists. The Rense site was until recently the favorite venue of Barry Chamish for publishing his own conspiracy pablum. Rense features numerous ultra-anti-Semitic columnists, and it is interesting to note that many of these also write for the Far-Leftist pro-jihad Counterpunch web site. Anti-Semites of a feather.... Rense especially loves Jewish Holocaust Deniers and he currently features British ex-Israeli crackpot, Holocaust-Denier Gilad Atzmon, on his site.

Three weeks ago, Kumel read about my article addressing the parents of Rachel Corrie and attacking them for their "law suit" against Israel. He read this on a leftist Irish pro-jihad web site called Irish4Palestine. He then crayoned his own article about this for Rense, and it ran on Rense.com, and included one of my email addresses. I then got about 100 crank emails, most of them from subliterates insisting in misspelled pidgin that all Jews would soon be murdered and that Hitler had all the right ideas. Kumel himself sent me 2 emails, and I responded by promising him that he would soon be sharing a cell with Ernst Zundel (the Neo-Nazi deported from Canada and now in German prison for Holocaust Denial). Kumel stopped responding after that email.

Kumel's piece on Rense.com celebrating the Corrie parents and attacking me was picked up and reprinted on dozens of web sites of the Far Left, and of course also on many Arab web sites.

The crank emails were no worse than similar things I have been getting for many years. The newsworthy parts of this tale include two main points: 1. the identity of a major central player in the Rachel Corrie lobby who happens to be a convicted Neo-Nazi murderer and a Hitler-worshipping crackpot; and 2. the ease with which anti-Semitic ravings from UFO-obsessed Holocaust Denial web sites of the Nazi Right find their way onto so many leftist web sites and blogs.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Family Security Matters, March 24, 2010.

This was written by Fareed Khan, a journalist specializing in Pakistan who writes for AsiaNews.


Islamabad, Pakistan — Arshed Masih (pictured above), 38, is still fighting for his life in Holy Family Hospital in Rawalpindi, a city not far from Pakistan's capital. With the help of police, Muslim extremists last Friday set him on fire for refusing to convert to Islam and raped his wife, local sources told AsiaNews. The incident occurred in front of a local police station.

In 2005, Masih and his wife began working for a wealthy Muslim businessman, he as driver and she as his wife's maid. Recently, the two fell out of favor with their employer and his family because they insisted on remaining Christian.

During the incident, Masih's wife, Martha, "was raped by police agents," local sources said. The couple's three children, ranging in age from 7 and 12, were forced to watch their parents being brutalized.

"Masih and his wife are currently being treated in hospital," Holy Family Hospital officials said. "He was listed in serious condition with about 80 per cent of his body burned," the BosNewsLife agency reported. With that kind of burns, hospital officials said the 38-year-old victim is not likely to survive.

On Sunday, the Government of Punjab government announced an investigation into what happened. "The matter will be investigated and the culprits will be arrested," Punjab's Minister of Law Rana Sanaullah said.

The Christian couple lived with their children in the servant quarters of Sheikh Mohammad Sultan's estate in Rawalpindi. In January, religious leaders and Sultan reportedly told Arshed to convert to Islam with his whole family. After he refused, they threatened him with "dire consequences."

Arshed offered to quit his job, but the businessman allegedly said he would "kill" him if he were to leave.

Last week, tensions rose after Sultan reported the theft of 500,000 Pakistani rupees (almost U.S. $6,000), and an official complaint (First Information Report) was filed with police.

Although the Christian couple was not named as suspect, the businessman offered them to drop the case if they converted to Islam or "else that both would not see their children again."

The rest is known. Arshed Masih chose to remain loyal to his Christian faith, and last Friday he was set on fire and his wife raped by police.

Federal Minority Minister Shahbaz Batti, a Catholic, has so far refused to make any comment because he was "busy". He did say however, that he would issue a statement in the next few days.

Christian organizations in Rawalpindi and Lahore planned protests for today.

Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@ familysecuritymatters.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 24, 2010.


At the AIPAC convention, U.S. Secretary of State Clinton said, "When a Hamas-controlled municipality glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis, it insults the families on both sides who have lost loves ones over the years in this conflict."

"And here is how Prime Minister Netanyahu responded: 'Regrettably, the Palestinian Authority has also continued incitement against Israel." "A few days ago, a public square near Ramallah was named after a terrorist who murdered 37 Israeli civilians, including 13 children. The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) did nothing to prevent it."

Actually, the P.A. and Fatah were behind the dedication. Netanyahu was too easy on Clinton's misrepresentation and lie.

The U.S. refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing by the P.A. it sponsors, including and the many P.A. actions to keep the war simmering. The U.S. does not demand that the P.A. comply with agreed obligations to eradicate terrorism. What sense does it make of Israel to let the U.S. have a role in negotiations and even to judge whether the two sides have complied? (IMRA, 3/23.)

When Netanyahu identified the terrorist square as being in Ramallah, he put the lie to Clinton's assertion that the square was in a town controlled by Hamas. It is controlled by Fatah and Abbas, the U.S. protégé. She knows that.


U.S. Secretary of State Clinton indicated to AIPAC delegates that the dispute about a housing phase announcement for Jerusalem will be followed by others. [It did not stop them from applauding.] "The administration, she said, will continue to speak out against decisions it views as jeopardizing the peace process." "As Israel's friend, it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed."

"Mrs. Clinton also condemned those who incite violence against Israelis, including Palestinians who whipped up anger after Israel rededicated a synagogue in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem." (Mark Landler, New York Times, 3/23, A12.)

Her condemnation was unusual. Why is it unusual, considering that the Arabs often have been inciting to violence for decades? A U.S. official breaks no sweat rebuking Palestinian Arabs at an AIPAC convention. Problem is, the officials do not do so to the offenders nor in more meaningful forums such as the UN. Besides, this rebuke was not pointed but pussy-footed, referring to unidentified "Palestinians." It was not just non-influential individuals who did rabble-rousing but Palestinian Authority (P.A.) leaders. If she were sincere and willing to tell the "truth," she would have named the P.A. as the offender. She is much clearer in her criticism of Israel. That has been the U.S. pattern, not that of an honest broker. She and her Administration (not Congress and the American people) are not "Israel's friend."

The U.S. is the only hope of the world, but based on the State Dept. record of abandoning allies and appeasing enemies, and using duplicity at it, it is in no ethical position to presume to judge other countries. It praises Israel when a weak government of Israel accedes to U.S. demands to undermine its national security in behalf of existential Arab enemies. Who needs that praise?


"Given the shared challenges we face, the relationship between the United States and Israel has never been more important. The United States has long recognized that a strong and secure Israel is vital to our own strategic interests. And we know that the forces that threaten Israel also threaten the United States of America."

[The State Dept. has halted Israeli military victories, tried to strip it of secure borders, pressed it to reduce security measures, and subsidized terrorist forces. Obama came into office with a goal of shifting away from Israel and sweeping in a host of anti-Israel advisers.]

[When she reaffirmed U.S. devotion to Israeli security and its military assistance, did she forget U.S. refusal to let the IDF improve warplanes it might buy from the U.S., refusal to sell Israel bunker-busting bombs it needs to raid Iran's nuclear weapons factories, insistence that Israel not raid Iran while Obama discouraged certain tougher sanctions against Iran, U.S. overtures to Syria while Syria sponsors terrorists fighting against U.S. troops and threatening Israel, etc.?]

She praised AIPAC activists as an example of democracy in action. [The U.S. persecuted AIPAC employees, eventually having to drop the case. Her State Dept. tries to dictate to Israel a policy that contradicts the Israeli government's electoral mandate.]

She cited as an example of President Obama's resolve, his relentless pursuit of "quality and affordable medical care."

[Medical care is getting less affordable and poorer in quality as doctors drop out of Medicare for being too stingy. The new plan loads millions more patients onto an existing doctor shortage. The new plan would increase the doctor shortage also if, as it purports it will do, balance the budget by reducing doctor allowances further. I think it won't reduce allowance much more, can't, but then the deficit would grow.]

[Allowing people with pre-existing illnesses to get insurance will raise the cost of insurance. More important is the government's heavy intrusion into business, raising their costs by ordering people to offer and buy insurance and seeking to regulate everything with the dead hand of bureaucracy, is an un-American reduction of liberty and would stultify our economy. If you figure in the non-counted cost increases and the likely reduction in tax revenues from over-regulation and increased business expenses, the costs are much greater than admitted.]

[Most important is the spectacle of the Administration and Congress getting the legislation passed by all sorts of lies, sneaky parliamentary maneuvers, exemptions, and special privileges, without addressing the causes of soaring medical costs. What is more phony than attaching a big tax increase to the bill and then claiming that the medical plan would reduce the deficit? The medical plan adds to the deficit. Omit it, and the deficit would be reduced. What is more phony than claiming a deficit reduction by counting more years of income than of expenses, and of counting as savings acts not yet enacted? Since that is how Obama operates, Israel had better keep the U.S. out of its affairs. He will ruin Israel as he is ruining the U.S.]

In support of her claim that the U.S. recognizes Israel's right to exist, she cited President Truman's recognition of Israel (IMRA, 3/20).

She conveniently omitted, what AIPAC somehow does not grasp, that Truman also embargoed arms that the new Jewish state needed for self-defense against Arab aggression already started. She did not mention U.S. demands that Israel cede Jerusalem, without which, what is the Zionist purpose or at least soul?


The Palestinian Authority and NGOs in it divert well-intentioned international donations to promoting hatred against Israel.

A recent example is an ad by a Palestinian Arab youth organization, PYALARA. The ad shows an axe destroying a Star of David and the stars and stripes. The ad exhorts: "Boycott" Israel. It urges readers to watch the P.A. TV program calling for a boycott. About 300,000 Arab children watch that program's series.

The TV host admits, "We know that the Palestinian Authority is tied to a number of agreements that prohibit it from completely boycotting Israel... we call upon all the youth, to all the residents, to all businesses and stores, to completely boycott the Israeli goods in their stores." His program starts off: "The program Speak Up has decided to dedicate this program to a theme which is a national obligation upon each of us — the topic of boycotting Israel in all ways."

The ad reads that the weekly youth program Speak Up is "produced in cooperation with PBC (PA TV) with the support of UNICEF." The ad displays the UNICEF logo.

UNICEF has been funding PYALARA for a decade. UNICEF chose that organization as a "major strategic partner in Palestine" [whatever "Palestine" is]. (Palestinian Media Watch, 3/23).


Magdi Khalil, a leading Coptic activist asks "Jews in the United States to adopt the cause of Coptic Christians in Egypt, to invite Coptic leaders to speak at Jewish research centers and Congress and to support Christians in Egypt, for their role in the 'prevention of Egypt's transition to a jihadist state hostile to Israel.'

Khalil said "We do not have much freedom of expression," so we need such support." "Khalil, who runs the Pennsylvania-based Middle East Forum and a center in Cairo, said that 'enhancing the status of Copts in Egypt also serves Western, American and Jewish interests because Copts in Egypt are struggling to prevent the transformation of Egypt to an armed jihadist state that would be anti-Western and anti-Israel.'"

He finds that Egyptian policies have encouraged Radical Muslims to gain influential positions in the government (IMRA, 3/23).


Mauritania broke diplomatic relations with Israel. It attributes this to the war in Gaza. Egypt and Jordan remain the only two Arab states to retain such relations (IMRA, 3/23).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, March 24, 2010.

Poppies and shmura matzah near Beit Guvrin

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


I don't have any formal training in photography. I learned at a school called, "What happens if I try this?" So often students come to me with camera in hand and ask, "What does this setting do?" While I can easily explain the answer, I usually tell them to take a picture, then change the setting and compare the results. Even without a basic understanding of the photographic principles that govern these different options, this is an excellent way to learn how to maximize the potential of your camera.

This week's photo features a technique I discovered while looking at another photographer's portfolio — also an excellent way to learn and expand your personal creative vision. In photoshop, I selected each of the individual color channels and applied a significant blur. I had to fool around a bit with the amount of blur until I arrived at something I liked. Then I made slight adjustments to the brightness and contrast. That's all. It took me less than a minute to convert the photo from a nice flower shot to a personal statement — a unique holiday greeting with an old-fashioned, colorized feel. Of course, it helped to have a few sheets of shmura matzah on hand as well. Chag Sameach Ukasher. Happy Passover.

Technical Data: Nikon D300, 70-200 zoom at 102 mm, f5.6 at 1/500sec.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, March 23, 2010.

The impression is that the Government of Israel, aka the GOI, is more afraid of Jewish patriots than of Arab murderers. Considering the openly treacherous and inhumane way the GOI has treated the Jews of Israel for the past 15 years or so, they have good reason to be afraid. There has built up a reservoir of anger and rage at the GOI that will not be dissipated by anything short of regime change.

This is not an anger that is limited to the "settlers" or the "hilltop youth" but has spread to large numbers of regular Israelis living on the right side of the Green Line as well. Ordinary Israelis have seen the IDF chased out and defeated in Lebanon by a street gang. They have seen all of the direr predictions of doom and gloom from a Gaza pullout come true. They have seen 10,000 Jews treated worse than Arab terrorist by the GOI with no end in sight to their suffering. POWs have been left to rot in enemy hands and no effort is made to save them. The inevitable splitting of Israel into an extremely rich and privileged upper-class and a progressively impoverished underclass is also forcing many to look closer at the structure of Israel. What many have seen has been very ugly to them. This below is by Hillel Fendel and appeared March 10, 2010 in Arutz-7


(Israelnationalnews.com) Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu went to the United States, after promising U.S. President Barack Obama that he would consider additional "gestures" towards the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. Among the gestures considered was the release of terrorist prisoners — and Shmuel Medad of Honenu asked, "Why are Jewish security prisoners not released as well? Don't Jews have holidays too?"

Medad, known as Zangy, heads the Honenu civil rights organization, which provides legal and other aid to Jews accused of security crimes. He told Arutz-7's Hebrew newsmagazine that ten years ago, "We turned to then-President Ezer Weizmann and told him it's bad enough that Arab terrorists are being released, but why do the Jews have to remain in prison? He said that he had not thought of it that way, and later agreed to our request; some of them were freed right away, and the remainder were released within the year."

Minister Yishai

Within ministerial circles, Zangy says that Eli Yishai of Shas has been the most helpful, though he too has not succeeded in practice. "Yishai tried to have them pardoned, he spoke about it in Cabinet meetings, and allowed me to speak to his Knesset faction — but beyond that he did not turn it into an ultimatum or the like. It was important that he spoke about it, but nothing practical resulted."

Zangy said that legislation has been formulated and proposed, stipulating that Arab terrorist prisoners will no longer be released unless Jewish prisoners are released as well. The Jewish prisoners in question would only be those who committed the acts for which they are imprisoned in response to terror attacks. Supporting the bill are MKs Tzachi HaNegbi, Chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and coalition whip Ze'ev Elkin. The bill is currently on hold because Netanyahu thought it interferes with negotiations for Gilad Shalit, "though I don't see the connection," Zangy said.

Murderer Might be Released before Victim's Father!

"For example," Zangy says, "we are about to commemorate the first anniversary of the terrorist murder of Shlomo Nativ, the boy who was axed to death in Bat Ayin. Wounded in the same attack was the son of Ofer Gamliel, who is serving an unprecedented 15-year sentence for having participated in a terrorist attack that never even happened — and his role was simply not having notified the police about it in advance. Arabs convicted of the same crime receive about half that punishment... At this rate, the murderer himself might be released even before the father of the boy he axed!"

"These people — a small group of about 15 individuals in prison — are paying a very high price for having reacted to a situation over which they had no control, namely, terrorism. There are those who justify it more, or less, but the fact is that they and their wives and their families are suffering, and we must be sensitive to this and do what we can to help them — either to have them released, or to allow them vacation time at least!"

15-Year Prisoner's Wife: They Keep Coming Up with "New" Information

Michal Gamliel, Ofer's wife, spoke to Israel National News of her life raising seven children alone for the past nearly eight years — and for another seven years as well, if the Shabal (Israel Security Agency) has its way. "I have practically given up hope of seeing him out before the 15 years are up," she said. "I write letters to whoever possible, and submit court suits, and ask that he be allowed to have vacations — but then the Shabak comes with their 'secret' information on how dangerous he is, and I have no idea what that information is, and the judge is told how dangerous he is, and that's the end of it. I have no strength left to fight them any more; I have to support my family, and run the house, and take care of everything myself, and I can't do it. And don't forget that each time I submit a petition, the Shabak has to come up with new 'secret' information — they can't just rehash the same stuff — and yet even though he's in prison and doesn't talk to anyone, they still manage to come up with new information on how dangerous he is. So how many times can I continue banging my head on a brick wall? In the end, one's head breaks."

Despite this, this Thusday, the Honenu lawyer Adi Keidar will file a request on the Gamliels' behalf to have Ofer released just for the upcoming Passover Seder. "Last year he was home for the Seder for the first time in his seven years in jail — and that was only because of the special circumstances that our son had just been wounded in a terror attack... So far, in the past nearly eight years, he has been out only for that Seder, a hospital visit to our son, three bar/bat mitzvahs for our children, and to pay a condolence call to his mother after her mother died — and that's it."

Asked what the chances are that he will receive parole after ten years, Michal said, "Since he doesn't get vacations, because the Shabak has determined that he is so "dangerous", there is no chance that he will get parole..."

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 Arlene Kushner, March 23, 2010.

As we move along, exposed to the surface of various events, I would like to simply look a bit deeper. There is, of course, much that is buried with sufficient depth that it's impossible to see it all. Yet, nonetheless...

Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the AIPAC conference. She began by providing all of the pro-Israel, touchy feely sound bites that make her seem very positively disposed to Israel.

She said things like:

"...our commitment to Israel's security and Israel's future is rock solid, unwavering, enduring, and forever."

"Guaranteeing Israel's security is more than a policy position for me. It is a personal commitment that will never waiver."

(Does your heart do a pitter patter at all of this? Or does your stomach turn upside down?)

Unfortunately, some news sources picked up exclusively on this seemingly pro-Israel stance — especially in headlines — and so, depending on what you've read, you just might have a distorted picture, skewed to the positive.


The reality is that when you read or hear her entire speech, it's possible to see that it's a horror.

Construction in "East" Jerusalem and "the West Bank," she told listeners, "endangers the proximity talks" and exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region hope to exploit. It undermines America's unique ability to play a role — an essential role — in the peace process..."

Just as the children of Israel were afraid when leaving Egypt, she said, but had to be brave enough to move forward, so must Israel be brave enough to move forward now.


The message is simple: the onus is on us. The US wants certain things and expects us to not get in the way.

All of this, of course, is in Israel's best interests, as the US knows what's good for us. America, she made clear, does not accept the legitimacy of continued "settlements," but that's a positive stance for the future of this region.

As JPost editor David Horovitz put it:

"...there was no escaping the sense that she was trying to deliver a wake-up call to an Israel perceived by this administration, to some extent at least, as blundering intransigently toward disaster." Clinton, he says, underlined profound US doubts about Netanyahu's commitment to peace.

See Horovitz's piece at:


On the flip side, while Clinton mentioned incitement, she dealt with it insufficiently. First, of all, she did not adequately link it to the PA — in fact she avoided making that association.

She declared that "... when instigators deliberately mischaracterize the rededication of a synagogue in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem's old city and call upon their brethren to "defend" nearby Muslim holy sites... it is purely and simply an act of incitement."

Ah, it is incitement, of course, but left unsaid by her was that the PA was a major one of those "instigators."

Similarly, she said, "When a Hamas-controlled municipality glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis, it insults the families on both sides who have lost loves ones over the years in this conflict.

It's true that the square was in a municipality where Hamas had won local elections, but the square dedication was under the auspices of Fatah, which is the PA. This she neatly elided. By mentioning Hamas, she implies that it's those "other" bad Palestinians doing this, not our good "partners for peace."

Besides which, I resent her deliberate evenhandedness. It's the families on our side, who have been injured by terrorists, who are insulted.


There should have been some US acknowledgement of PA stances (see below) that make peace impossible, in the face of all of Israel's sincere efforts. But to expect that would be silly.

The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton — functioning as a flunky for Obama — is very bad news for Israel.


Following this unsettling talk, came our prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who gave a rousing and highly appropriate statement of dignity with regard to Israel's rights and intentions. A portion of what he said:

"Ladies and Gentlemen,

"The connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel cannot be denied.

"The connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem cannot be denied.

"The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 year ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today.

"Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital. (emphasis added)

"In Jerusalem, my government has maintained the policies of all Israeli governments since 1967, including those led by Golda Meir, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin.

"Today, nearly a quarter of a million Jews, almost half the city's Jewish population, live in neighborhoods that are just beyond the 1949 armistice lines.

"All these neighborhoods are within a five-minute drive from the Knesset.

"They are an integral and inextricable part of modern Jerusalem.

"Everyone knows that these neighborhoods will be part of Israel in any peace settlement.

"Therefore, building in them in no way precludes the possibility of a two-state solution.

"Nothing is rarer in the Middle East than tolerance for the beliefs of others.

"It's only under Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem that religious freedom for all faiths has been guaranteed."

It's worth reading his entire statement, which includes references to Jewish links to Jerusalem going back 3,000 years:


So, if I am proud of these words, and very pleased that Netanyahu spoke them, why am I unsettled still?

Because he met already with Clinton, and will today be meeting with Obama — and it was said upfront that none of this would happen unless he conceded certain things. Precisely what was conceded still floats vaguely in the air, in a cloud of rumors.

Clearly, Netanyahu cannot publicly concede that there will be a freeze on construction in Jerusalem. Not only is the government opposed to this, polls show that a majority of Israelis are. I will breath easier when I know that what he said at AIPAC is solidly meant, without undercurrents of unspoken understandings (such as unofficially delaying permits that would allow the construction to continue).

Perhaps this IS the case.

Knowing becomes very important.


However, just as there are rumors regarding what Netanyahu might have conceded, are there rumors concerning what Obama has threatened. And "knowing," if it were to be meaningful, would have to include an understanding of precisely why Netanyahu — whose position is not to be envied — may have given Obama something. This is not likely to happen.

One of the rumors floating has to do with Obama's refusal to let us have additional bunker busters, which would be critically important in taking on Iran. Were it the case, Netanyahu might see this (rightly or wrongly), as reason enough to quietly concede something. Then there is the threat Fayyad has made to bring the reality of a Palestinian state to the Security Council, and Netanyahu's possible perception (rightly or wrongly) that mollifying Obama at some level might be exceedingly important in this regard if US veto of the state is needed.

This is, please realize, speculation, which I hope shines some light on precisely how complex this situation is. It may also be that Netanyahu simply gets nervous when the Americans are seriously angry with us. My gut continues to say that standing strong is the correct response.


Normally I might wait until news of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting before writing, but it has already been announced that there will be unusual secrecy. (Secrecy, again.) And it unclear that anything definitive will be made public in any event.


I close here with the latest on the PA.

Yesterday, PA president Mahmoud Abbas, after meeting with Mitchell in Amman, said that the PA would participate in "proximity talks" only if Netanyahu abided by a recent Quartet demand to totally freeze all construction.

If such talks actually do commence, it will, it seems to me, tell us a great deal about the degree to which Netanyahu has quietly caved.

Given this threat, there should be no talks. And the Obama administration should be pointing a finger at the obstinate and uncooperative Palestinian Arabs. Ha!

Lastly, in a response to a question by a journalist about recent violence, Abbas said that the Palestinian people had a national right to resistance against Israeli occupation. He then added, according to Haaretz, that his government "would not acquiesce to any Israeli demands with which it disagreed."

So, he endorses violence and eschews compromise. Makes him a perfect candidate for peace negotiations, no? So Hillary, placing a spin on this, would undoubtedly say.


I am in that hectic pre-Pesach period. Know that postings may be slowed down. Arlene Kushner is Senior Analyst for the Center for Near East Policy Research in Jerusalem. Contact her at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, March 23, 2010.

This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg, an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org


On March 19, the day after this report was nearing completion, Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post's brilliant political analyst, published an article entitled "Obama's war on Israel." My present report goes a bit further. No reflection on her perspicacity. I just want to pursue the logic of Obama to its ultimate logical conclusion, even if he is a fraud or an Alice in Wonderland, as some believe.

In deference to Glick, however, who takes Obama seriously — as one should — I will begin by quoting a salient aspect of her timely article. She writes:

On [March 12], Obama ordered his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to present Netanyahu with a four-part ultimatum. First, Israel must cancel the approval of the housing units in Ramat Shlomo. Second, Israel must prohibit all construction for Jews in Jerusalem neighborhoods built since 1967. Third, Israel must make a gesture to the Palestinians to show them we want peace. Fourth, Israel must agree to negotiate all substantive issues, including the partition of Jerusalem (including the Jewish neighborhoods constructed since 1967 that are now home to more than half a million Israelis) and the immigration of millions of hostile foreign Arabs to Israel under the rubric of the so-called "right of return" ...

Only an idiot would fail to see in this ultimatum that Obama, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wants to "wipe Israel off the map." Seeing this, the Arabs have no need to engage in negotiations, which suggests to me that Obama is tacitly inviting them to eliminate Israel by war! Ponder this: Obama ordered a consignment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions already on its way to Israel to be diverted to the US Air Force base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. Nor is this all.

At the outset of his presidential campaign, I wrote that Obama's slogan of CHANGE really meant "Regime Change." A few months after the election, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton reported that Obama is the first post-American president of the United States.

Accordingly, Obama's policy of distancing America from Israel and drawing the US closer to the Muslim world is a logical, political, and metaphysical consequence of his anti-American mentality. Even if Obama lives in fairyland, the stakes are too high to use ordinary criticism when speaking of such a president — holder of the most powerful office in the world.

Obama's anti-America and anti-Israel objectives are evident not only in his political statements and policies, but also in the attitude of some of his political appointments and advisers — court Jews as well as non-Jews. Among the latter, suffice to mention former President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, a crypto-Marxist. To this anti-Semite add Obama's appointment of Samantha Power to the National Security Council, who proposed a US invasion of Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

Now ponder Obama's disparagement of the American Declaration of Independence — whose "Higher Law" doctrine is rooted in the Torah. I deem this a war on America metaphysically equivalent to his war on Israel. If we juxtapose his early Muslim upbringing and current Muslim appeasement, logic indicates that Obama's war on Israel and America is nothing less than a war against Western civilization in favor of Islam's global ascendancy. Here is further evidence.

Obama's (absurd) reference to America as a Muslim state, his adulation of Islam at Cairo's Al-Azhar University (the Harvard of the Middle East), his demotion of Judaism in his Inaugural Address, his indifference to Ahmadinejad's maledictions "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," his bowing to Saudi King Abdullah — these and other signs are indicative of an insidious global agenda.

It will not do to describe Obama as a closet Communist or to reveal his Muslim sympathies. We know of his anti-American and anti-Israel gurus such as Marxist Saul Alinsky, terrorist Bill Ayers, PLO-supporter and Saudi-connected Rashid Khalidi, "Nation of Islam" Jew-hater Louis Farrakhan, or "God damn America" preacher Jeremiah Wright — to mention only a few of Obama's charming mentors.

Professor of international relations Angelo Codevilla warns that Obama is conducting a "self-discrediting [hence anti-American] diplomacy toward Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China." Add Syria, which aids insurgents in Iraq and ships Iranian missiles to Iran's client Hezbollah in Lebanon. Obama is not only appeasing enemies and punishing friends; he is disarming America morally and militarily. Let me reiterate his "war on Israel." Israel is not only America's most steadfast ally, supplier of advanced technology and incomparable intelligence. Israel is the only outpost of Western civilization in the Middle East. The loss of Jerusalem would ignite Islam's long smoldering ambition to establish a Muslim world order.

Admittedly, every American administration since Nixon and Kissinger has pressed Israel to risk its existence — it's called taking "risks for peace" — by conceding geostrategic assets to the PLO, the wiliest spearhead of Islam. The American government, conned into believing the PLO represents "moderation," secretly and openly bankrolled this Fatah-led mafia during the past two decades. Of course, this is nothing compared to the Carter-Brzezinski subversion of the Shah of Iran, which facilitated the Iranian Revolution the return of the Parisian-exiled Ayatollah Khomeini to Teheran.

America's ruling class — its policy-making, opinion-making, and military elites — is now being led by an Islamophile, an enemy of America. This ruling class, thanks to America's misnamed "higher" education, is not only ignorant of the true nature of Islam; it is also ignorant of, or has never internalized, the classics of statecraft and war. Tainted by multicultural relativism, this backward ruling class cannot even see that while there are "moderate Muslims," Islam is anything but moderate. This ruling class cannot address the fact that what it misleadingly calls Muslim "extremists" increasingly dominates Islamdom. Indeed, these Islamic-true Muslims are spreading throughout American democracy where they exploit a mindless liberalism or tolerance of "diversity."

Thus, to paraphrase Codevilla, when a Muslim shouts "Allahu Akhbar," as did U.S Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan as he shot 51 colleagues as Fort Hood, Texas, the official reaction revealed the stupefied and pusillanimous character of America's ruling class — politicians and journalists and even high-ranking military officers. After the shootings, President Obama warned against "jumping to conclusions," and Army Chief of Staff George Casey added, "it would be a greater tragedy if diversity became a casualty here." Codevilla comments: "Never mind that Hasan identified himself on his business card as "SoA" (a soldier of Allah).

Official obscurantism makes Obama's appeasement of Iran all the more fearful. Armed with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles, Iran could control the oil resources of the Middle East, emasculate Europe, totally collapse the American economy, and even resurrect the Persian Empire — the startling conclusion of Robert Baer, former CIA operative in the Middle East.

An American president who praises Islam and displays contempt for America's Founding Fathers now constitutes an existential threat to Western Civilization.

This worst case scenario will be dismissed as scare-mongering. But whoever thought PLO chief Yasser Arafat, an Arab terrorist expelled from Lebanon, holed up in Tunis, without Iranian oil or arms, without even a minute fraction of Iran's population and territory — who ever dreamed that this villain would become a mortal threat to Israel by gaining worldwide support for a PLO state in Israel's heartland — and with the endorsement of Binyamin Netanyahu?! If the despicable PLO could accomplish this objective, it would be foolhardy to dismiss my worst case scenario.

As many scholars have warned, the West is involved in a clash of civilizations with Islam. We are in a world war having metaphysical significance. This war will not be won or even waged by democracies steeped in multicultural relativism. The trial of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders exemplifies the decadence of such democracies. Recall how they treated the gallant Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, who dared tell the truth about Islam in her book The Rage and the Pride. Recall how a Swiss judge issued an arrest warrant for her alleged violations of the Swiss criminal code and requested the Italian government to either prosecute or extradite her. Recall how an Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial on charges of "defaming Islam" in her book The Force of Reason, most notably for her reference to Islam as "a pool that never purifies." But there is more.

Note Europe's permissive immigration laws, the influx of millions of prolific anti-Western and economically ruinous Muslim immigrants — a sociological disaster documented by Michael Radu, Europe's Ghost: Tolerance, Jihadism, and the Crisis of the West (2009). Fearful of the canard of "racism," and animated by a perverted humanitarianism that permits the immigration even of Muslim terrorists expelled by Arab countries, England and Europe are committing national and cultural suicide.

This madness is invading the United States and it has anti-Semitic consequences for Israel. A countermovement to preserve Western Civilization is urgently needed. I will discuss this matter in a future article. Some people may want to send this article to Caroline Glick.


*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, March 22, 2010.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, March 23, 2010.

This was written by Daniel Greenfield and it appeared March 22, 2010 on his website
(http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/03/ obamas-victimization-of-jewish-refugees.html).


Obama's Victimization of Jewish Refugees from Muslim Countries

One of the unreported aspects of Obama's manufactured insult over an Israeli housing project in Jerusalem is the way in which the administration has targeted Jewish refugees from Muslim countries.

While media reports frequently denounced Interior Minister Eli Yishai, as a "Right Wing Extremist", for approving one stage of the planned housing project — what they did not report was the larger story. Eli Yishai is the head of the Shas party, one of Israel's largest political parties, which represents the interests of Sefardi and Mizrahi Jews from Muslim countries. And the housing project would have benefited Jerusalem's sizable population of Jews from Muslim countries.

In the 20th century a vast exodus took place in which as many as a million Jews from Muslim countries fled or otherwise departed, often leaving behind homes and valuables. Some came to America and Europe. Many more came to Israel instead. Today three million Mizrahi Jews live in Israel, indeed the majority of Israeli Jews are not the "immigrants from Brooklyn" derisively referred to by Israel-bashing pundits, but Jews whose families came to Israel from Muslim countries, or who spent many centuries living in Jerusalem under Muslim dominion.

They came from Yemen, Turkey, Libya, Syria, Morocco, Iran, Egypt, Iraq and Algeria. Some were driven out by enraged Muslim mobs. Others had their children stolen and their property seized by the government. Others remained behind "sand curtains", unable to leave. The ways in which some of these Jews were smuggled out of the country through a virtual "Underground Railroad" is unknown to most. And this is a story that continues today.

Consider the story of one woman who successfully helped smuggle out thousands of Syrian Jews by bribing Syrian government officials. And though she describes the work in terms of the Holocaust, "How do you negotiate the price of human lives? I was breaking up children from their parents. It was like the 1940s — they were desperate to get their children out", in fact the last family she saved was in 2001.

This is what a million Jews from Muslim countries escaped to begin their lives again in Israel. They left behind life in Muslim countries where they were Dhimmis, legally treated as second class citizens under Islamic law. They thought that they had turned their backs on a state of affairs where Muslims could dictate that synagogues should be built no taller than mosques, where their lives were worth less than a Muslim's and were paid for with blood money and forced to live in ghettos. That is until Obama decided to be gravely insulted because they had decided to live in a place that he thought they had no right to live.

Some commentators have speculated that Obama's goal by manufacturing the "insult" scandal, was to force Shas out of the government coalition, thereby disenfranchising the millions of Jews from Muslim countries living in Israel. Apologists for Obama have cloaked this in the guise of some sort of campaign against the "right wing", but Shas, which has been part of coalitions with the Labor Party, including Yitzchak Rabin, is hardly right wing. It voted for the Oslo Peace Accords. It has been fairly open to all sorts of concessions. But its political leader Eli Yishai drew the line at turning portions of Jerusalem into a Jewish Ghetto, while reserving the remainder of the city for Arab Muslims.

And let us consider for a moment, Eli Yishai. Like so many other children of Jewish refugees from Muslim countries, Yishai was born in Jerusalem. His father, Zion Yishai, however came from Muslim Tunisia. Jews have lived in Tunisia for over 2,500 years. But where they once numbered in the hundreds of thousands, today there are hardly a thousand Jews left. The majority of Tunisian Jews now live in Israel and Europe.

The introduction of Tunisian Jews to Islam began under Idriss I, a direct descendant of Mohammed himself. Idriss I persecuted and massacred the Jews, demanding that they pay Jizya and deliver a certain number of virgins annually to his harem. And thus Idriss I showed himself to be a true greedy and perverted descendant of Mohammed. Several years later Idriss I was fatally poisoned by his Jewish doctor. But despite this coda, as the centuries passed, the discrimination and persecution of the Jews of Tunisia continued.

In the 15th century a Flemish nobleman wrote as follows; "The Jews, on the other hand, have no freedom. They must all pay a heavy... tax. They wear special clothes, different from those of the Moors. If they did not do so, they would be stoned, and they therefore put a yellow cloth on their heads or necks; their women dare not even wear shoes."

Tunisian Jews were forced to live in ghettos called "Haras", subject to Muslim riots and atrocities. One in 1864 was described as follows, "Muslim fanaticism... unleashed against our brethren on the island of Djerba... synagogues profaned and defiled. The Scrolls... torn in pieces and burnt... men injured and trampled... all the women and girls raped .... My pen refuses to set down the terrifying ... atrocities ... in all [their] horror."

In 1869, the rabbis and leaders of the community of Tunis appealed desperately to the government in Paris that "in the face of Muslim ferocity, eighteen Jews have fallen to the knives of the fanatical murderers.

Tunisian independence, celebrated by liberals as the end of colonialism, opened the door to a renewed wave of Muslim anti-Jewish violence. Today of the 105,000 Jews that lived in Tunisia in 1948, barely a thousand remain. This brief recitation of history is important because it is a reminder of what so many of the millions of Mizrahi Jews of Israel and their fathers and grandfathers suffered. And those liberals who cynically condemn Eli Yishai as a "right winger" because his party would like to provide housing for Jews in Jerusalem, rather than returning to the Tunisian ghettos are cynically exploiting the real victims of Islamic colonialism.

Obama and those in the EU who are striving to turn Jerusalem into another ghetto with areas where Jews may live and areas where they may not live, are once again inflicting the horrors of Islamic Occupation on the Jews who fled from it. It is of course understandable that Obama would sympathize with Muslims over non-Muslims due to his own extensive Muslim heritage, a fact he himself emphasized in a speech at Al Azhar Islamic University. But where Obama might have chosen to redeem his ancestors' religion by showing tolerance to the Jewish refugees whom his family's co-religionists had persecuted for over a thousand years, he instead chose to perpetuate their legacy of oppression by manufacturing a scandal over the "insult". The insult being that Jewish refugees and the descendants of Jewish refugees might have actually been able to live in their ancient city in homes built on empty land. And as a result Muslim anti-Jewish riots have broken out in Jerusalem, that bear some resemblance to those in Tunisia.

"I think that the Arabs want to control the whole world. That is obvious; after all, it is written in their Koran. Furthermore, you can't trust them. For instance, my parents were their neighbors in Yemen. When my parents decided to immigrate to Israel, the Arabs tried to rob them of their possessions." So speaks Avraham Yitzhaki, one of the original residents of the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood.

The Shas party meanwhile has promised to use Obama's attacks in their own campaign commercial and their newspaper answered Barack Hussein Obama even more bluntly in its weekly newspaper, describing Obama as "a Palestinian stone throwing youth in East Jerusalem, and not a strategic leader" and his actions as, "a creative solution coming from an Islamic extremist". The editorial concluded, "Today it is here, but tomorrow it will be in the U.S. and Europe".

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 23, 2010.


"non-violent demonstrator" at Bil'in (AP/Nasser Ishtayeh)

"Every week, violent thugs, hooligans and terrorists attack Israeli police and soldiers as part of the 'protest' against Israel defending its children from genocidal terrorists. The 'protesters' hold these violent confrontations at the West Bank villages of Bil'in and Na'alin. They are the initiative of violent anti-Israel extremist groups financed by the New Israel Fund. The rioters include "'archists'and members of the pro-Hamas Ta'ayush group."

A Ta'ayush leader, Amos Goldberg, had an Op-Ed in today's Haaretz, denouncing "people who criticize those violent thugs or who challenge the right of hostile forces outside of Israel to fund treasonous groups inside of Israel." "In it, Goldberg claims Israel is warring against 'human rights activists.' The truth is that his 'human rights activists' are pro-jihad terrorists. Of course what REALLY has him upset is the beginning of understanding among Israelis that groups like his are being propped up, in spite of having almost no support within Israel, by belligerent groups outside of Israel, including the New Israel Fund. Violent hooliganism is 'peaceful protest,' insists Goldberg."

Goldberg makes other complaints. Without citing incidents, he claims that Jewish civilians attack Arabs, the Arabs call police, the police delay their arrival. He claims that between government harassment, arresting protest leaders without cause, and declaring the area a "closed military zone" on Fridays, the government seeks merely to repress democratic opposition to its policies. Such a declaration is supposed to be against security risk, not non-violent protest. Goldberg complains that the government does not similarly declare outposts closed military zones.

Another type of complaint is that the Israeli government is asking European governments to stop financing groups such as his and is considering outlawing the use of foreign funds for such groups (Prof. Steven Plaut, 3/22).

We have here emotional language, use of labels to impugn rather than identify, and differing accounts and interpretations. Let's make sense of it.

A government that expelled thousands of Jews from their homes, keeps removing Jews from outposts, and that often bars them from taking possession of purchased property hardly can be called anti-Arab. I have reported Arab attacks on Jews in the Territories and on their farms, and a delayed police response that often as not ends up with police arresting Jews on the complaint of Arab attackers or merely for having defended themselves. He should acknowledge that Israeli police have falsely arrested Jews legally protesting hostile government policies and beaten them.

Goldberg's protestors throw rocks and firebombs at police and attempt to destroy the fence designed to keep terrorists out. That protest hardly is non-violent. Arrests are justified. Surely the government has a right to oppose foreign funding of violent protest. This is a matter of subversion, not of civil rights. Lack of honesty about this renders suspect Goldberg's unsubstantiated allegations of Jewish civilian attacks on Arabs.

Goldberg's linguistic bias shows up in his describing Arabs in neighborhoods of Jerusalem as "residents" and Jews who move into existing neighborhoods not as residents but as "settlers." He omits the fact that Arabs there have assaulted the Jews. Instead he portrays the few Jews as assaulting the many Arabs.

False arrests, beating, abuse of "closed military zone," and unequal protection of the law have no place in a country purporting to be a democracy. Neither does subversion and violent protest. Goldberg is in the trend of pretending that violent protest is non-violent and that terrorism is not terrorism. Such lies impugn one's own integrity and one's own patriotism.

Israel has erred by being too accommodating to critics. It failed to arrest violent mobs at the outset, letting police suffer injuries for many months. The result is to let violence persist and mount. By the time the government acts, its effort must be much greater and gets more criticized.


Two Jewish adults and a baby found their usual route clogged, so they drove through a normally calm, primarily Arab neighborhood of Jerusalem, Emek Yehoshafat (Wadi Joz). About a hundred Arabs threw rocks at them. A boulder smashed the windshield. The Arabs came over and smashed their windows. Next, the driver thought, they would be lynched. He screamed for help. The mob paused. That enabled him to gun the motor and flee.

Upon reaching a police station, he found the police uninterested in their condition or their car's. They told him he may file another police station, and suggested one in another Arab neighborhood. He went to the main one, instead. But the police attitude is unconcern and tolerance for Arab violence (Arutz-7, 3/22).

Compare this story with the one in the prior article.


Clinton and Lee Rosenberg at AIPAC. Friend of Obama? (AP/Cliff Owen)

AIPAC's new president is businessman Lee Rosenberg, a Chicago friend of Obama who raised campaign funds for him. Rosenberg is known for an ability to elicit funds from non-enthusiastic sources. His relationship with the U.S. President was considered an asset in his elevation (Arutz-7, 3/22).

The key question not answered and and not raised in this news report is what are Rosenberg's views on the Arab-Israel conflict and on jihad in general?

Such is diplomacy that the dais is applauding their enemy.


Fighting for exclusive worship (AP/Dan Bality)

Tuesday evening [shortly after this article is posted], Temple Mount activists are to rally in downtown Jerusalem, in behalf of Jewish freedom of access to the Temple Mount. Jews have been restricted by police, but not by the courts. Police want to avoid Muslim riots.

Some Jews are petitioning for the right to conduct the ancient animal sacrifice at the Mount. Courts prohibited that, fearing Muslim riots (Arutz-7, 3/22).

Israeli restrictions on Jewish worship at the Mount belie Israeli government boasts of freedom of access to all faiths. The Jewish faith does not enjoy the same access as the Islamic faith. The more Israel succumbs to Muslim threats to riot, the more Muslims resort to what they can see is a successful tactic. Should a country be inhibited by rioters?

If the rally were in the Old City near the Temple Mount, Arab violence could be anticipated. Why do the Arabs riot over Jewish desires to pray at their holiest site? The Muslim Arabs consider their religion to have exclusive rights. Their culture is violent.


Ayatollah Khamenei (AP/Vahid Salemi)

President Obama made another offer to Iran to improve bilateral relations, and Ayatollah Khamenei replied with an accusation that the U.S. is trying to overthrow his regime (NY Times, 3/22, A10).

The news report does not quote the President's offer. It is written so obscurely, that it is difficult to discern whether U.S. criticism of Iran and threats against it were part of the offer. Was it, let's be friends or else? That does not work with a strong, fanatical, sovereign state.

Candidate Obama promised to reconcile with Iran and end its drive for nuclear weapons by dialog. Iran put off any dialog and countered by making its own demands. Meanwhile, additional issues between the countries arise, such as Iranian repression of dissent. Iran claims the U.S. helps the dissenters.

Obama's promise was not practical. Since Iran aims for global conquest, it cannot reconcile with the U.S. Obama's promise has failed. Obama won't admit it, even as Iran is completing its nuclear arms development. What protection does America have from the Obama regime?


How much will he be asked to swallow? (AP/Baz Ratner)

Israeli PM Netanyahu met most U.S. demands, so he is meeting most U.S. officials in Washington. They will not snub him, after all. One of the suggested concessions that the New York Times did not seem to report before it did in the 3/22 edition. This one is release of some convicted Fatah prisoners (Isabel Kershner, A10).

The Wall St. Journal puts it, "Pres. Barack Obama and Israeli PM Netanyahu will meet Tuesday in a bid to quell a diplomatic squabble that has left the U.S.-Israeli relationship at its lowest point in decades." In explanation, the reporters mention that Israel "announced the building of 1,500 new Jewish homes in an East Jerusalem neighborhood" and that "the White House said it viewed the announcement as direct challenge to U.S. foreign policy interests..." (Charles Levinson and Charles Solomon, 3/22, A10.)

Those reports are misleading. During the election campaign, Obama started appointing a series of anti-Israel advisers. When not talking to voters, he made it plain that he was going to try to placate Muslim states at Israel's expense. He snubbed Netanyahu before. He manufactured the diplomatic crisis in order to make demands upon Israel. The Journal misleads readers in making the squabble seem to have left the relationship at its low point. No, Obama made and used the squabble to lower it. If readers think that U.S. coercion of Israel makes for a healthy relationship now that the leaders are meeting, they are mistaken.

Nor did Israel announce new construction, as implied. It announced that construction approved in its first three phases now was approved in its fourth phase. Nor is the neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem, nor is there an "East Jerusalem," as if a separate city.


A flurry of polls of American's views of the Arab-Israel conflict are coming out. The Word Doctors' poll shows the usual high American support for Israel and almost no support for the Palestinian Arabs.

The significant question was whether the conflict is viewed as territorial or religious and ideological. 18.7% think it is about land, and would be resolved by agreement on land. 72.8% think it is about religion and ideology, and would be resolved by "acknowledging each other's right to exist."

More than half think it definite or possible that Iran would use nuclear weapons to exterminate Israel, and more than half think that Iran would let terrorists have access to such weapons (IMRA, 3/20).


The Maagar Mohot Survey Institute polled Israelis: "Some claim that if Israel were to withdraw to the '67 lines — including leave the Golan — it would enjoy peace for generations since the Arabs would no longer have any claims against Israel. Do you think that this is a naïve or simplistic view or a reasonable and correct assessment?

82% Naive and simplistic
08% Reasonable and correct
10% Don't know/Other replies"

We last reported a poll in which Americans viewed the Arab-Israel conflict as one over religion and ideology, and not over territory (IMRA, 3/22).

Israelis are in the position of American Indians. The Indians were offered peace for land. They got poverty. Several tribes ceded much of their land, only to see the government return with a demand for more land.


#1 IDF Spokesperson 21 March 2010, 13:44

What happened:
2 Palestinians killed after attempt to stab soldier

During a routine patrol carried out by IDF forces southeast of Nablus, two Palestinians tried to stab a soldier. The forces opened fire in response, killing both terrorists. No soldiers were hurt and the circumstances of the incident are currently under investigation.

Meanwhile, the disturbances have continued in Judea and Samaria as hundreds of Palestinians clashed on Sunday (Mar. 21) with security forces in Gush Etzion. Palestinians hurled rocks at security forces who were forced to respond with riot dispersal means.

#2 Narrative of Palestinian NGO

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
Press Release

Ref: 19/2010
Date: 22 March 2010
Time: 08:30 GMT

PCHR Condemns Israeli Escalation in the OPT; IOF Kill Two Civilians in West Bank and Launch Air Strikes in the Gaza Strip

In the past three days, Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) have escalated their war crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). The latest of such crimes committed by IOF were the killing of two Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and air strikes against targets in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) condemns this escalation and renews its call upon the international community to bring to trial Israeli political and military leaders who are allegedly responsible for war crimes.

In the West Bank, IOF killed two Palestinian civilians from 'Awarta village, southeast of Nablus. Less than 24 hours earlier, IOF killed two Palestinian civilians, including a child, in cold blood in Iraq Bourin village, south of Nablus.

According to investigations conducted by PCHR, at approximately 12:05 on Sunday, 21 March 2010, the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) in Nablus was informed by the Israeli Military Liaison that there were two bodies belonging to Palestinians who were killed by Israeli troops near 'Awarta village, southeast of Nablus. A PRCS ambulance drove to the reported scene. Ahmed Jebril, the driver, and Jamal Husni Abu Hamda, a paramedic, were in the ambulance. A vehicle belonging to the Israeli Military Liaison was waiting near Hawara checkpoint at the southern entrance of Nablus to lead the ambulance to the scene where the bodies were. The ambulance followed the military vehicle that drove towards the east of 'Awarta village on 'Aqraba — Yanoun road. The military vehicle stopped near an area of land planted with olives, approximately seven kilometers far from the village. As the ambulance arrived, Jebril and Abu Hamda saw two bodies. The bodies were near the two edges of the road and there was a distance of 10-15 meters between them. They were covered with blankets which are used by the IOF. Israeli soldiers who were in the scene allowed the paramedics to check the two bodies. There were several wounds throughout the two bodies. Abu Hamda saw two small hoes and a Pepsi Cola in a plastic sac with one of the soldiers. The two bodies were carried to the ambulance that drove to 'Awarta commercial checkpoint to return to Nablus. Residents of 'Awarta village who gathered near the checkpoint identified the two victims as: Mohammed Faisal Mahmoud Qawariq, 20; and Salah Mohammed Kamel Qawariq, 19, both from 'Awarta village.

The two bodies were transferred to Rafidya Hospital in Nablus. Dr. Abdul Karim Hashash, who examined the bodies, told a PCHR fieldworker that Mohammed Qawariq was hit by four bullets to the chest (with entrances and exits), one to the bottom of the abdomen and two ones to the left thigh and leg. He also sustained fractures and burns in the left leg. This indicates that he was shot from a close range. Salah Qawarir was hit by a bullet that entered the chest and exited the back, another one to the right arm (with a entrance and an exit) and a third one that entered the back and exited the top of the chest. Abu Hamda stated that the nature of the wounds sustained by the two Palestinians, their clothes and what he saw with the soldier indicate that they were working in their land. In the Gaza Strip, from Friday, 19 March 2010, till Monday morning, 22 March, Israeli warplanes launched several strikes on civil targets.

  1. At approximately 01:00 on Friday, an Israel F-16 fighter jet drooped two bombs on Mahdi al-Daia & Sons Company for iron framing on Saladin Street near the police station in al-Zaytoun neighborhood in the east of Gaza City. The building, which stands on an 800-square-meters area of land was completely destroyed, but no casualties were reported.
  2. At approximately 01:10 on Friday, Israeli warplanes fired five missiles at Saladin Gate, Yebna refugee camp, and Block J which are located in the south of Rafah, near the border with Egypt, allegedly to destroy tunnels. As a result, Bader 'Oudet Allah al-Sha'er, 32, was wounded by shrapnel to the face, and Salem Hamdan al-Sha'er, 48, sustained a fracture of the right foot as a result of the strike. The wounded persons are workers in the tunnels.

  3. At approximately 01:25 on Friday, Israeli F-16 fighter jets dropped a bomb on a farm in the east of 'Abasan village, east of Khan Yunis. No casualties or material damage were reported.

  4. At approximately 22:20 on Friday, Israeli warplanes fired four missiles at Gaza International Airport, southeast of Rafah. Eleven Palestinians, including two children, were wounded as a result. The wounded civilians who are all residents of Rafah were transferring raw aggregate from the destroyed runway of the Airport.

    Note: PCHR keeps the names of the wounded.

  5. In the early morning of Monday, 22 March 2010, Israeli warplanes fire a missile at al-Shouka village, near Rafah International Crossing Point on the Egyptian border, southeast of Rafah, allegedly to destroy tunnels. The targeted tunnel was set alight as a result, but no casualties were reported.

PCHR reiterates its condemnation for these crimes and:

1. Asserts that these crimes are part of a series of war crimes committed by IOF in the OPT, which reflect total disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians.

2. Calls upon the international community to take immediate action to put an end to such crimes. PCHR further renews its demand for the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to fulfill their obligation under Article 1 which stipulates "the High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances," as well as their obligations under Article 146 which requires that the Contracting Parties prosecute persons alleged to commit grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These grave breaches constitute war crimes under Article 147 of the same Convention and under Protocol I Additional to Geneva Conventions (IMRA, 3/20 www.imra.org.il/).

An arms smuggling tunnel is a legitimate military target. It is no war crime to attack it, and no ensuing casualties are war crimes. The Palestinian Center routinely calls legitimate Israeli military actions "war crimes" and does not call illegitimate Arab military actions war crimes.

Our earlier report on the two men shot explained that they charged with a pitchfork and broken bottle. That would not make them innocent civilians.

Al-Qaida coaches terrorists to feign innocence and pretend to be civilians. The Palestinian Arabs apply the same tactic. These Radical Muslims have a religious principle permitting deception of non-Muslims. Hence when various sources analyzed the Goldstone Report and the NGOs from which it copied much of that report, they found all sorts of self-contradictions and impossibilities. The IDF identified many Arab casualties as particular terrorists in particular organizations. The terrorist organizations called them innocent civilians, but on their own web sites, lauded those casualties as members of their organizations. Human rights organizations used to deceive people by calling civilians Arab casualties not in uniform or perhaps not seeking combat, when they were sought out for their crimes and perhaps resisted arrest.

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

To Go To Top

THE STATE BEYOND THE PALE: Europe's Problem with Israel
Posted by Ivor Silverman, March 23, 2010.


Author: Robin Shepherd
Type: Hardcover
ISBN: 0297856642
Publisher: Orion Publishing
Number of items: 1
Number of pages: 320
Publication date: 2009-09-10
Author: Robin Shepherd

I have recently read The State Beyond The Pale (Europe's Problem With Israel). By Robin Shepherd.

Mr Shepherd has made in depth research and has maintained a balanced and fair view of Israelis, Jews and Anti-semitism.

He worked at Chatam House, in St. James' Square, London, and as I assume was made to relinquish his post there due to his views and honesty.

The minute I picked the book up, I found great difficulty in putting it down. It is very gripping, and written with great flair.

I suggest for people who wish to read truth and knowledge of the situation, to purchase this book. You will not be sorry, money well spent. Ivor Silverman.

Contact Ivor Silverman by email at ivorsilverman@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, March 22, 2010.

This was written by Christopher Hitchens and it appeared in the National Post, Canada.


I have just finished reading one of the most astoundingly stupid and nasty documents ever to have landed on my desk. It consists of a letter from a law firm in Saudi Arabia, run by a man named Ahmed Zaki Yamani, to a group of newspapers in Scandinavia. I quote directly from its main paragraphs:

"Over the past months my law firm has been contacted by several thousand descendants of the Prophet, who have learned about your newspaper's republication of the drawing, depicting their esteemed ancestor as a terrorist suicide bomber with a bomb in his turban. As descendants of the Prophet, these individuals feel personally insulted, emotionally distressed and defamed by your newspaper's re-publication of the drawing. They have therefore retained my law firm and instructed me to approach you ..."

So that's the stupid part — the idea that people who claim descent from a seventh-century warlord and preacher have standing to sue for hurt feelings. The nasty bit comes a few paragraphs later:

"It is my belief that your newspaper's fulfillment of the above-mentioned conditions would be perceived as a sign of respect and understanding throughout the Muslim world in general, and your newspaper might thus help resolve the severe conflict, which your re-publication of the drawing has created. As you may be aware, this conflict is still affecting Danish and Arab interests, in particular in the Middle East, where a number of Danish products are still being boycotted."

It is impossible not to notice the element of threat and menace contained in the second extract. It's not difficult to remind Danes of the organized campaign of hysterical retribution, ranging from the burnings of embassies to the mob-killing of civilians, that followed the first publication of some mild caricatures of the prophet Muhammad in 2005. Only a little further backstory is required: In 2008, it was discovered that a cell of eager murderers was planning to kill those who authored the caricatures, and in solidarity a large number of Danish newspapers reprinted the drawings in order to express their support for freedom of speech. Then, on New Year's 2009, a Somali fundamentalist chopped his way into the house of 74-year-old cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who was having a sleepover with his granddaughter, and very nearly succeeded in axing them both to death. The apology for all this, however, is supposed to be forthcoming not from the aggressors and inciters but from their victims. Late last month, Copenhagen newspaper Politiken agreed to make a public apology on the terms dictated by the Yamani law firm.

Celebrating this abject decision at a triumphant press conference in Beirut last week, Yamani repeated his bizarre claim to be the lawyer for no fewer than 94,923 descendants of the outraged prophet. Again, he made one utterly absurd statement and one extremely sinister one:

"In our view, all religious icons of all religions, such as the Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ, Moses, and (not to be compared to prophets and messengers) others who are non-religious icons but have contributed to humanity like Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama, and others such as Ibn Sina, Ibn al-Haitham and Albert Einstein all deserve respect and protection from ridicule and defamation."

Cretinism on this historic level is comparatively rare. Apparently, Yamani thinks that Mahatma is a first name rather than a Hindu religious honourific, and that the words "Dalai Lama" are a secular title. Moreover (and you have to admit that tossing in a Jewish name is a nice touch), he would protect the stern Spinozist Einstein from being lampooned for the many wrong surmises he made about the Big Bang and quantum theory. But while it is obvious that he knows nothing of such matters, he does know how to unveil a threat:

"We wished that all the Danish Newspapers which published the Drawings accepted to enter into a settlement as Politiken did, and published an apology to avoid multiple jurisdictional litigations and costly damages in favour of our clients."

If you ask yourself whether Yamani cares more about the supernatural world or the grossly material one, it will not take very long to come up with an answer. You can detect it in the way that he balances the soft inducement against the hard threat of remembered mayhem: Yamani or your life.

But it is in the material world that newspapers are published and in which laws and constitutions exist that inscribe their right to print material without censorship and intimidation. It is also in the material world that laws protect grandfathers and their granddaughters from homicidal religious maniacs. Are we to surrender these hard-won rights in favour of the hectic emotions of people who claim a distant kinship with a quasi-mythological figure who was uneasy with both reading and writing and preferred to recite? This is without precedent. Are we now to be dogged with lawsuits by those in whose veins the blood of Henry VIII, Mussolini, Columbus or Ivan the Terrible can be alleged to flourish? (At least — unless you believe Dan Brown — this will not be such a problem in the case of the Virgin Mary.)

The thing would be ridiculous if it were not so hateful and had it not already managed to break the nerve of one Danish newspaper. In Ireland a short while ago, a law against blasphemy was passed, making it a crime to outrage the feelings not just of the country's disgraced and incriminated Roman Catholic Church but of all believers. The same pseudo-ecumenical tendency can be found in the annual attempt by Muslim states to get the United Nations to pass a resolution outlawing all attacks on religion. It's not enough that faith claims to be the solution to all problems. It is now demanded that such a preposterous claim be made immune from any inquiry, any critique and any ridicule.

This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. All democratic countries and assemblies should be readying legislation along the lines of the First Amendment, guaranteeing the right of open debate on matters of religion and repudiating the blackmail by law firms and individuals whose own true ancestry would not bear too much scrutiny. Slate.com Photo: Pakistani rioters protest the reprinting of cartoons critical of Islam in Danish newspapers on March 5, 2010. (Arif Ali/AFP/Getty Images)
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/ archive/2010/03/12/christopher-hitchens- extortion-in-the-prophet-s-name.aspx#ixzz0iwxhvNse

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, March 22, 2010.

This was written by Dr. Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum and Taube Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.


No matter how events play out, this story ends with U.S.-trained soldiers pointing their guns at Israel.

'The stupidest program the U.S. government has ever undertaken" — last year that's what I called American efforts to improve the Palestinian Authority (PA) military force. Slightly hyperbolic, yes, but the description fits because those efforts enhance the fighting power of enemies of the United States and its Israeli ally.

First, a primer about the program, drawing on a recent Center for Near East Policy Research study by David Bedein and Arlene Kushner: Shortly after Yasir Arafat died in late 2004, the U.S. government established the Office of the U.S. Security Coordinator to reform, recruit, train, and equip the PA militia (called the National Security Forces or Quwwat al-Amn al-Watani) and make them politically accountable. For nearly all of its existence, the office has been headed by Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton. Since 2007, American taxpayers have funded it to the tune of $100 million a year. Many agencies of the U.S. government have been involved in the program, including the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the Secret Service, and branches of the military.

The PA militia has in total about 30,000 troops, of which four battalions, totaling 2,100 troops, have passed scrutiny for lack of criminal or terrorist ties and undergone 1,400 hours of training at an American facility in Jordan. There they study subjects ranging from small-unit tactics and crime-scene investigations to first aid and human-rights law.

With Israeli permission, these troops have deployed in areas of Hebron, Jenin, and Nablus. So far, this experiment has gone well, prompting widespread praise. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) calls the program "extremely encouraging." and Thomas Friedman of the New York Times discerns in the U.S.-trained troops a possible "Palestinian peace partner for Israel" taking shape.

Looking ahead, however, I predict that those troops will more likely be a war partner than a peace partner for Israel. Consider the troops' likely role in several scenarios.

No Palestinian state: Dayton proudly calls the U.S.-trained forces "founders of a Palestinian state," a polity he expects to come into existence by 2011. What if — as has happened many times before the Palestinian state does not emerge on schedule? Dayton himself warns of "big risks," presumably meaning that his freshly minted troops would start directing their firepower against Israel.

Palestinian state: The PA has never wavered in its goal of eliminating Israel, as the briefest glance at documentation collected by Palestinian Media Watch makes evident. Should the PA achieve statehood, it will certainly pursue its historic goal — only now equipped with a shiny new American-trained soldiery and arsenal.

The PA defeats Hamas: For the same reason, in the unlikely event that the PA prevails over Hamas, its Gaza-based Islamist rival, it will probably incorporate Hamas troops into its own militia and then order the combined troops to attack Israel. The rival organizations may differ in outlook, methods, and personnel, but they share the overarching goal of eliminating Israel.

Hamas defeats the PA: Should the PA succumb to Hamas, it will absorb at least some of "Dayton's men " into its own militia and deploy them in the effort to eliminate the Jewish state.

Hamas and PA cooperate: Even as Dayton imagines he is preparing a militia to fight Hamas, the PA leadership participates in Egyptian-sponsored talks with Hamas about power sharing — raising the specter that the U.S.-trained forces and Hamas will coordinate attacks on Israel.

The law of unintended consequences provides one temporary consolation: As Washington sponsors the PA forces and Tehran sponsors those of Hamas, Palestinian forces are more ideologically riven, perhaps weakening their overall ability to damage Israel.

Admittedly, Dayton's men are behaving themselves at present. But whatever the future brings — state, no state, Hamas defeats the PA, the PA defeats Hamas, or the two cooperate — these militiamen will eventually turn their guns against Israel. When that happens, Dayton and the geniuses idealistically building the forces of Israel's enemy will likely shrug and say, "No one could have foreseen this outcome."

Not so: Some of us foresee it and are warning against it. More deeply, some of us understand that the 1993 Oslo process did not end the Palestinian leadership's drive to eliminate Israel.

The Dayton mission needs to be stopped before it does more harm. Congress should immediately cut all funding for the Office of the U.S. Security Coordinator.

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 22, 2010.


Obama and the King of Saudi Arabia(A.P. photo/Ron Edward)

President Obama did more than denounce Israel over a housing phase announcement. He withheld some promised bunker bombs that Israel would need to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons facilities (Arutz-7, 3/21).

U.S. promises keep getting broken. And behind the Administration's denunciations is extortion. Bullying is what Obama does; bullying is what Democrats purported to dislike about Bush. Will they see it in President Obama? Will the media point it out to them?

Obama has not explained why he protects Iran from Israel and the U.S. Yes, he talks about sanctions, but they would be hopeless even if he strove for stiff ones, which he does not. Therefore, his claim to be seeking sanctions is just another breaking of his word, another blot on the U.S. reputation.

I can see dangerous repercussions to a raid, but the U.S. government has not brought them to light and made a case about them. This supposedly open President operates behind closed doors. One can see the same method in his evading questions about medical legislation and about Congress refusing to consider improvements in it and to allow votes on it. Can't convince? Control. That is their modus operandi.


Tony Blair and Quartet (A.P./Alexander Zemlianichenko)

Two London newspapers report a finding by a British parliamentary committee kept secret for two years that Quartet emissary Tony Blair is on a big oil company's payroll and has oil interest in the Mideast. He has made 20 million pounds since leaving office facilities. Britons are wondering how objective and how much of a public servant he is, or whether he is self-serving (Arutz-7, 3/21).


All over the disputed Territories and even in Israel, Arab rioting, stone-throwing, shooting, and attempted stabbing of Jews continues. Much of it centers in the Gush Etzion bloc [an area in which Jews had communities before the Jordanian army ethnically cleansed them in the 1948 war, and which unaware people now call "Palestinian land"].

Some Israelis dub these attacks "Obama's Intifada," because if seems inspired by his denunciation of Israel and his championing of the Muslim cause, whose violent excesses he does not denounce. Israelis expressed anger at their government for not providing sufficient security (Arutz-7, 3/21).

The State Dept. policies favoring the Arabs and Obama's more obtuseness about the Arabs have deadly consequences for which Obama fails to take responsibility.

On the other hand, the Israeli government has no policy to end the attacks. Self-restraint is no solution. Neither is withdrawal, as the withdrawal from Gaza turned that area into a terrorist base.


The House of Representatives passed a bill "punishing" Arab TV satellite broadcasters that it considers to be promoting terrorism. The news brief is not clear whether Congress is considering punishment or monitoring, and what the punishment would be.

The Center for American and Arabic Studies, in Washington, deems the bill a threat to freedom of speech. The Center declares that the reason stated by the House is a subterfuge for oppression (IMRA, 3/21). The Center means freedom of the press.

Who would have thought the Arabs would champion freedom of thought for America? They curb it in their own countries.

Must they always impugn opponents' motives, as insinuating that the House just seeks to oppress and refers to terrorism as a pretext? We know that certain Arab satellite broadcasters encourage jihad, including jihad against the U.S.. The U.S. is not obliged to provide an audience, some of whom would seek to attack the U.S.. Imagine if freedom of speech meant that the U.S. had to provide an audience for propaganda by the Nazis, with whom we were at war in the 1940! It was absurd then and it is absurd for the Nazis totalitarian admirers, the jihadists.


The pollster whose findings were published by the left-wing Israeli daily, Haaretz, accused the paper of distorting his results. The English edition did not include the array of figures that readers could use to reach their own conclusion. Instead, its headline made the assertion, "Poll: Most Israelis see Obama as fair, friendly toward Israel." The English edition elaborated near a picture of Obama that "69% say Obama is fair and friendly."

The newspaper included as "fair and friendly" a Hebrew word that the pollster used to mean businesslike, not fair and certainly not friendly. The headline was removed from the website, but the paper insisted it was fair (IMRA, 3/22).


At bottom of sophisticated tunnel (A.P./Eyad Baba)

A.P. photo/ Eyad Baba — at bottom of sophisticated tunnel

Gaza terrorists continually fire rockets into Israel, and the IDF retaliates against arms smuggling tunnels, as it did on 3/22, or against arms factories (IMRA, 3/22).

Some Israeli defenses against rockets would cost more than the rockets fired at Israel. In this case, the bombed tunnel probably costs more than the bombs that struck it.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Frankfurter, March 22, 2010.

The Hebrew press this morning (Yediot Aharanot) reported that the UN Secretary General was deeply offended that there was no official reception other than a security detail when he arrived in Israel on Friday night. What Chutzpah! He arrives in the Jewish State on Shabbat & expects us to break our religious codes to greet him. According to the UN, it is deeply offensive for us to practice our religion. No surprise that we aren't allowed to defend ourselves against murderers.


To Go To Top

Posted by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, March 22, 2010.

A UNICEF-supported program's advertisement features a giant ax splitting the Star of David


Donor organizations to the Palestinian Authority have been challenged for years to prevent their well-intentioned contributions from being directed towards hate promotion by the PA, its institutions and its NGOs. [Edit Image] This advertisement is another example of the misuse of UN funding. An ad by a Palestinian youth organization, PYALARA, which is funded by UNICEF, shows an axe destroying a Star of David. The UNICEF logo is right on the ad. The large Star of David that has been destroyed has on it pictures of stars and stripes, presumably representing the USA, and an additional smaller Star of David. The organization PYALARA (Palestinian Youth Association for Leadership and Rights Activation) has been funded by UNICEF since the year 2000: "PYALARA has been chosen by UNICEF as a major strategic partner in Palestine." [PYALARA website]

On the axe that destroys the Star of David is the word: "Boycott!" in the imperative tense. Youth are invited to watch the PA TV program calling for a boycott of Israel. In the program the host acknowledges that they are aware that the boycott is illegal but they have chosen to ignore this: "We know that the Palestinian Authority is tied to a number of agreements that prohibit it from completely boycotting Israel... we call upon all the youth, to all the residents, to all businesses and stores, to completely boycott the Israeli goods in their stores." The program started as follows: "The program Speak Up has decided to dedicate this program to a theme which is a national obligation upon each of us — the topic of boycotting Israel in all ways." [PA TV March 21, 2010] The ad reads that the weekly youth program Speak Up is "produced in cooperation with PBC (PA TV) with the support of UNICEF."

The following is information about PYALARA — Palestinian Youth Association for Leadership and Rights Activation — from its website: "PYALARA is registered as an NGO at the Palestinian Ministry of Interior Affairs. We work closely with the Palestinian Ministry of Education, Ministry of Information, and the Ministry of Youth and Sports, as well as with Palestinian universities and colleges, a wide national network of schools, and a good number of other NGOs in implementing projects with a national and comprehensive outreach. PYALARA has been chosen by UNICEF as a major strategic partner in Palestine... Since December 2000, PYALARA has produced, with the support of UNICEF and the cooperation of Palestine TV, a weekly two-hour TV program called Speak Up. An average of 300,000 Palestinian children and teenagers watch every episode." Join Our Mailing List

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 Maayana Miskin, March 22, 2010.

Yitzchak Levi has accused Jerusalem police of apathy in the face of an Arab attack that could have ended in death.

Levi, an artist who was one of the designers of the parochet (Holy Ark curtain) for the rebuilt Hurva synagogue, says that he, a colleague, and his baby daughter were attacked while driving through a neighborhood in the capital city. He recalled the attack in an interview with Arutz Sheva's Hebrew-language news service.

The incident took place on Friday, after Levi had visited the Hurva. As streets in the Old City were crowded, Levi decided to take a detour through Emek Yehoshafat (Wadi Joz), a primarily Arab neighborhood just north of the Old City's Herod Gate. It "is considered a calm area," he said.

"Suddenly, about 100 Arab rioters attacked us with a barrage of hundreds of rocks," he recalled. "The car was warped by the blows, and then a boulder hit the front windshield and smashed it."

Levi's 18-month-old daughter was sitting in the back seat of the car, asleep in her carseat. The noise woke her. Fortunately, Levi said, she was only lightly injured, and suffered "just a few scratches."

"We were afraid they were going to lynch us," Levi said. "They approached until they were right next to us, which meant the rocks were not thrown so hard, but even so, they smashed all the windows."

"I felt like they were going to slaughter us," he added.

Levi managed to escape by screaming for help, which distracted the attackers for several seconds — long enough to allow him to slam on the gas and speed away.

Levi managed to reach police stationed nearby. There, he said, he was shocked at the officers' indifference. "The police were totally calm, as if this were a normal event... They were apathetic when they saw us," he accused.

"I took my daughter out to see if she had been hurt, and out of dozens of officers just one came over and said, 'Did something happen to the girl?' in an apathetic tone," he continued. "I told him to look at what had happened to us, so he would wake up. They saw the car but didn't do anything."

"Apparently they think it's reasonable for Jews to be pelted with stones..." he concluded in frustration.

The police suggested that he drive to a police station in a nearby Arab neighborhood to file a complaint. Levi, who feared another attack if he were to drive into an Arab neighborhood again, decided to file a complaint in the station in the Russian Compound instead.

Emek Yehoshafat, the Valley of Jehoshafat, is where the nations will be brought for judgment, according to the Prophet Yoel(Joel), chap 4. It is incorrectly called Wadi Joz by the Arabs who mispronounced the name and shortened it. Located between Mount Scopus and the Herod Gate in the Old City walls, it is the site of the Rockefeller Museum of Antiquities and a center for car repairs. It is normally considered a safe neighborhood, but this could be a sign of things to come, Levi warned. "Wadi Joz is a place where people used to go to fix their cars, to chat... and yet this happened there. People shouldn't be surprised if tomorrow this happens in other 'calm' places," he said.

Maayana Miskin writes for Arutz-7 (www.INN.com) where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Amil Imani, March 22, 2010.

Almost everyone uses scapegoats. It is in our fabric. The word "scapegoat" has come to mean a person, often innocent, who is blamed and punished for the sins, crimes, or sufferings of others, generally as a way of distracting attention from the real causes. It is a potent human disposition to blame others for our failings.

The derivation of the term scapegoat also comes from the Old Testament-see Leviticus 16. During the Jewish high holy day of Yom Kippur in the Temple era high priests would sacrifice a goat that would be consigned "for Azazel" and would carry with it the sins of the nation.

Without scapegoats to blame, we are forced to look at ourselves for our problems. Examining ourselves can be very disturbing, particularly when we either lack the resources or the willingness to tackle them. So, we take the good old easy way out of the mess by shifting our focus to the outside world for targets to blame.

Look at young kids. They are expert blamers. They always have an answer, someone or something to blame in self-defense. We, the chronological adults, don't completely abandon our childish strategy of ascribing blame to external sources. We simply do so with a greater degree of sophistication by finding, if at all possible, a grain or two of truth to legitimize our attributions.

One of the most notorious persons who used the Jews as scapegoats was the Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler. In his infamous book Mein Kampf (My Struggle) he blamed the plight of Germany at the end of World War I on an international Jewish conspiracy and used terms such as extirpation and extermination in relation to the Jews. Unfortunately, we have seen in recent years the emergence of a number of such assaults, indeed, conspiracy theories, targeting the Israel lobby and the American Jewish community. Over and over throughout history, this small group of human beings have been used as scapegoats for the problems of the world.

Even our former President Jimmy Carter in his book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and John J. Mearsheimer, an American professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government coauthored The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy use the scapegoating of Israel, the Israel Lobby, and American Jews.

Sadly, the Jewish people have been used as scapegoats for many centuries by a variety of non-Jews. Regrettably, Muslims for their part and have adopted scapegoating as an article of faith. The Muslims blame the Jews for all kinds of heinous things, dating back to the time of Muhammad himself. They say that the Jews of Medina betrayed the holy prophet by their treachery. They charged the poor exorbitant sums for their goods; did no productive work, yet made fortunes through money lending. To make matters worse, the Jews refused to embrace Muhammad's religion, they say. The story of Banu Qurayza's Massacre from Quranic verses, is very clear how Allah actually rejoices this in slaughter and enslavement of the tribe of Banu Qurayza's Jews.

Quran-33:25- "Allah turned back the unbelievers [Meccans and their allies] in a state of rage, having not won any good, and Allah spared the believers battle. Allah is, indeed, Strong and Mighty."

Quran-33:26- "And He brought those of the People of the Book [Jewish people of Banu Qurayza's] who supported them from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts, some of them you slew (beheaded) and some you took prisoners (captive)"

Quran-33:27- "And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things." [Merciful Allah asked Prophet Muhammad to confiscate entire properties of surrendered Jews.]

Hence, following the example of Muhammad, many Muslim societies have been blaming the Jews for everything and find them deserving of victimization. The litany of atrocities committed against the Jews by the followers of Muhammad is long indeed.

Regrettably, ascribing blame to others and legitimizing their victimization has become a way of life with the rabid Islamists. As sick as scapegoating is, it confers advantages to its practitioners. For one, it rallies the faithful against an enemy portrayed as depraved and dangerous. That's how Hitler and his gang of thugs aroused the German nation against the Jews. They falsely, yet successfully, blamed the Jews for Germany's economic problems.

The Islamists, for their part, are still playing the Jewish blame card as best as they can. The State of Israel, by its very existence, has provided the inept and habitually devious Islamists a palpable target to blame and attack. Yet, Israel still not only exists, but thrives in their midst. None of the dastardly actions of the Islamists has been effective at realizing their dream of pushing the children of Israel into the sea.

Islamic turbaned villains in Iran and their hired thugs have done a great job of basically eliminating a lot of internal opposition by their brutality and have murdered thousands of innocent people in the name of Islam. They have also chased the majority of the Iranian Jews out of the country by making their life as miserable as possible. The few remaining Jews are still used as whipping boys from time to time. Contrary to the Islamic dogma, the Iranian people are proud of their historical friendship with the Jewish people. The bond of friendship goes back to the landmark action of King Cyrus the Great of Persia. In 537 B.C., having, conquered Babylon, the benevolent King Cyrus freed the Jews from captivity and empowered them to return to the Promised Land and build their temple and have a peaceful life and worship their God.

The return of the Jews to the Promised Land did not mark the end of their ordeal. Successive waves of ill-wishers, notably the Romans and then the belligerent Muslims, unleashed their unjustified wrath on the Jews. The Jewish people, in spite of suffering huge losses at the hands of their enemies, remained resilient and, with one exception, outlived their tormentors. The Pogroms in Russia, the ghettoization in much of Europe, and even the genocidal Hitlerism failed to wipe out the Jews. One diehard enemy, Islamic scriptures, has been hard at work for some 1400 years to complete the work of finishing off the Jews that Prophet Muhammad himself had started.

Iranians are saddened and ashamed both by the appearance of Ahmadinejad on the international scene and his declared intent to wipe out the Jewish homeland from the face of the earth. Ahmadinejad repeatedly says that the Holocaust is a myth. In this respect, he is in good company with a number of other fanatics. It goes without saying that Ahmadinejad does not represent Iranian people and he is not an Iranian himself.

Ahmadinejad is an Islamofascist whose aim is to have a practice run, first on the Iranian Baha'is before embarking on destroying the Jews and other "undesirables," following in the footsteps of the German Fuehrer. Being Iranian is defined by a state of mind, not by a place of residence. In fact, Ahmadinejad despises anything Persian. Numerous photos show him proudly donning the Arab headscarf around his neck — a Palestinian headscarf that presently stands as a symbol of the Arabo-Islamic genocidal hate campaign against the Jews as well as non-believers of all stripes.

The 2006 circus in Tehran, billed as a "Holocaust Conference," was nothing more than a disgusting attempt by the barbaric inheritors of Muhammad's hate to continue in this tradition of wanton attacks on all unbelievers, particularly the Jews. Regrettably, their journey from their early beginning to the present has been fraught with great suffering. It is a tribute to the indomitable spirit of the Jewish people that they persisted in their valiant struggle to re-gather again in the land of their birth. They should also be applauded for affording millions of Israeli Arabs opportunities denied to them in many other lands. Many of us Iranians co-suffer with this tragic state of affairs that harms the Jews.

We, free Iranians, express our deepest sympathy to the Jewish people for what they have suffered and have been used as scapegoats throughout history. We also condemn, in the strongest terms, the new coalition of fascists that is brewing under the disgusting and dangerous banner of Islamofascisim. Amil Imani is an activist for freedom for Iran. He lives in the United States. Contact him at amil_imani@yahoo.com

This article is archived at
http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task= view&id=175&Itemid=2

To Go To Top

Posted by Batya Medad, March 22, 2010.

You get your answer according to how you word your question. Words have such power. Veteran readers of this blog know how riled I get by misuse of words. The mother of all Holocaust museums, Yad Vashem does all the Nazi victims a disservice by saying they "perished" rather than that they were murdered. People perish in floods, epidemics and earthquakes, but the Nazis murdered six million Jews and millions of others, whether directly with bullets, gas, poison or indirectly by creating these disease-filled camps, ghettos and other deadly conditions.

Another example of the power of words is the Obama campaign theme of "change." It's brilliant. It says nothing, because it means something else to each person. Almost everyone wants change, but they don't want the same things to change, nor do they want the same changes.

Israeli governments consistently get us into "hotter water" by trying to answer the unsubstantiated and antisemitic accusations against us. Obviously they're unfamiliar with Disraeli's wise advice, "Never complain and never explain." We've seen how when we act contrite, apologize and explain, it just legitimizes and increases the accusations. Sometimes you must make your own Teflon. I remember learning that the ancient walls surrounding Biblical Shiloh had a substance that stopped invaders from climbing them to protect the city. Israel's Hasbara Information Campaign must develop a modern version of it, and I'd start with Disraeli's instructions.

Opinion polls have too much power over the public and politicians. There are politicians who resemble cats chasing their tails in their attempts to modify their policies after opinion polls, rather than showing integrity, leadership and vision.

hat tip: IMRA
I got started on this rant after reading how Israel's extreme Leftist Haaretz newspaper distorted poll results.

Haaretz misled readers to give the impression that an overwhelming majority of Israelis see US President Barack Obama as "fair and friendly" toward the country, the newspaper's pollster, Tel Aviv University professor Camil Fuchs, said on Sunday.

No matter who writes his speeches and what they say, United States President Barack Hussein Obama is ironically incapable of change. He is too inyani, focused on his own narrow interests.

Yes, you can read in the result of that poll, if you know how to interpret the words and numbers. The bulk of the "fair and friendly" is from "51% defined Obama's approach to Israel using the Hebrew word "inyani," which can be translated as "matter-of-fact" or "businesslike," but not as fair." Actually, "inyani" is a much too ambiguous word to be used in a poll. It means different things to different people. You can also explain/define it as focused, even myopic, closed-minded and short-sighted when it comes to a politician like Obama. He has his policies and nobody should dare get in the way. That's not very diplomatic, davka, the exact opposite. There's no empathy, neither genuine nor fake. I guess that's the key to understanding Obama.

Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il

This article is archived at
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2010/03/ reading-and-writing-polls-and-magic-of.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 21, 2010.


The original story was that Mohammed Reza Heydari, a senior Iranian diplomat assigned to Oslo, broke with his regime, resigned, and received political asylum in Norway. The regime depicted him as an resigning for family reasons. Now Mr. Heydari has explained what happened.

Heydari had considered himself a loyal public official. He was assigned to certify absentees' Iranian ballots in Norway. He certified what he found, that the main opposition candidate got more of those votes than had the incumbent. He claims that the regime demanded that he certify favorable results for the incumbent.

Iranian intelligence agents threatened the lives of Heydari and his family. They also demanded that he inform on Iranian expatriates, as by identifying Iranian participants in anti-regime protests. One was his 17-year-old son, who had paraded in protest against the Iranian regime. He refused. He claims to be one of 28 Iranian diplomats who broke with the regime. 499 Iranians asked Norway for political asylum last year; 168 received it.

Most people who do, try to avoid publicity over it. A local reporter revealed Heydari's name. Now he felt he could not return home without facing discipline.

One Iranian reaction was to expel a Norwegian diplomat. Norway retaliated in kind.

Heydari now receives invitations to give speeches. One difficulty he faces about that and about how to earn a living is that he does not speak Norwegian (Alistair MacDonald and David Crawford, Wall St. J., 3/20, A1).


China kept Obama too busy to talk (A.P./Charles Dharapak)

Obama administration attempts to sweeten relations with Iran and Russia, especially by refraining from installing missile defenses in Eastern Europe, did not succeed except to sour relations with U.S. regional allies. When Sec. of State Clinton arrived, Russia told her it Russia was ready to start up Iranian nuclear reactors though the U.S. is trying to restrict Iran's economy. Turkey, Brazil, and China each snubbed the U.S. drive for sanctions against Iran. Russia does not cooperate with that drive. U.S. requests to Syria and N. Korea to stop using terrorism and stop developing weapons of mass-destruction have failed. President Obama's speech calling for improved relations with Islamic countries alienated Israeli affection [by negatively misrepresenting Israeli and Jewish history and by proposing to sacrifice Israeli national interests]. Now there is a U.S.-Israel rift.

China is criticizing the U.S. for asking it to up-value its currency, for selling arms to Taiwan, and for meeting with the Dalai Lama. The U.S. also presses China not to restrict Internet access and to reduce carbon emission.

The first example of a setback for U.S. diplomacy was give as, "Vice-President Joe Biden's trip to Israel last week was poisoned upon touchdown with news that Israel will proceed with new settlements in East Jerusalem — a direct challenge to the peace process advocated by Washington."

On the positive side, the U.S. is helping Pakistan by liquidating prominent terrorists that it feels endanger it, so Pakistan is providing the U.S. information on prominent terrorists that the U.S. feels endanger the war effort in Afghanistan. The U.S. also has greatly reduced injuries to Pakistani civilians in raids on terrorists. Previously, Pakistani intelligence restricted cooperation with the U.S.

Also, Russia may sign some anti-terrorism agreements with the U.S.

The reporters cite the observation by Kurt Volker, a former State Dept. official, that the Administration fails to anticipate reactions to its diplomacy (Jay Solomon and Peter Spiegel, Wall St. J., 3/20, A8).

This diplomatic stew needs interpretation. The ex-State Dept. official's observation should include domestic policy and bills that have unintended but foreseeable consequences. In this broader context, Administration ideology is self-centered and wishful thinking. The U.S. should figure out how much clout it has before tangling with other countries. Then the U.S. could accomplish something without other plans backfiring or failure making the U.S. look weak.

The new cooperation with Pakistan is most significant, if it continues. Agreements signed with Russia would be significant Russia is sincere and the agreements produce valuable results. That remains to be seen.

Some U.S. positions are the kind of human rights efforts that show the finest side of the U.S., still the best hope for the world. Others, such as asking China to raise the value of its currency, to make trading fairer, while the U.S. degrades the value of its currency to make trading less fair, should have been seen as hypocritical and unlikely to sway a great power such as China, so much of whose assets are invested in bonds in U.S. currency whose value the U.S. keeps eroding.

As Obama sells out Israel, he may get some temporary Muslim plaudits, but if he still has the U.S. stand in the way of jihad, the U.S. will have gained no Muslim support and lost Israeli support.

The reporters' description of the U.S.-Israel rift seems biased. They should know by now from opinion columns of their own paper that the rift was fabricated and exaggerated by the Obama administration. They nevertheless repeat as if a reason for the rift the Administration's stated pretext for the rift.

Their wording also gives away their slant. They call "new settlements" what are additional houses in an established neighborhood in a major city. They mistakenly situate the new houses in eastern Jerusalem, though it has been pointed out that those houses are in northeastern Jerusalem and were not acquired by the defeat of Jordanian aggression in 1967, as was eastern Jerusalem. They call the area the same as do the Arabs and the State Dept., "East Jerusalem," but there is and was no such a separate entity of "East Jerusalem."

They put the housing phase announcement as "a direct challenge to the peace process advocated by Washington." That wording continues the erroneous notion that the U.S. has a right to dictate to foreign countries and the wisdom to do so sensibly. The reporters call U.S. efforts to reduce Israel to indefensible borders, while the U.S. allow the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) to indoctrinate in hatred and terrorism, and while the U.S. training the P.A. military a "peace process." That terminology is propagandistic. Just because that is what the U.S. calls it does not make it so.

When Bush was president, Democrats thought he brought the U.S. into conflict with other countries. What do they think now that the situation is getting worse?

An earlier article reported that a former presidential advisor accused Israelies of disliking Obama for racist reasons. But he is increasingly loses respect all over the world and by all races, as he semi-appeases America's enemies, betrays America's friends, evades and dissembles, and proposes policies that would crush his country and insult other countries or challenge them on domestic issues. If the U.S. simply proposed democratic reforms globally, it would not incur the same contempt as when it proposes reforms while conspicuously violating some of the same principles, such as economic protectionism.


Tony Blair and Quartet (A.P./Alexander Zemlianichenko)

The Quartet of U.S., Russia, EU, and UN condemned Israel's announcement that a housing plan in northwestern Jerusalem is moving to another phase in its approval. The Quartet threatened to take non-specified steps against it.

The Quartet also demanded that the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) gain sovereignty within two years.

Israel's Foreign Minister Lieberman replied, "Peace cannot be artificially imposed with an unrealistic timetable. These types of statements only distance the achievement of a true settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, and give the Palestinians a false impression they can drag their feet."

After Israel retaliated against rocket fire from Gaza by destroying arms smuggling tunnels and a weapons factory, the Quartet stated that it "...condemns yesterday's rocket fire from Gaza and calls for the immediate end to violence and terror and for calm to be respected." (Jay Solomon, Wall St. J., 3/20, A8.)

Timetables have failed before. They give an advantage to the side that can wait them out. Notice that the Quartet does not war about steps to press the Arab side to move toward peace. Nobody does. But they all pretend that some housing by Jews is the great obstacle to peace.

Timetables may be imposed, but since the P.A. does reform its religious bigotry, indoctrination in hatred, doctrine of conquering Israel, and support for terrorism, the imposed timetable would not bring peace. Indeed, what the Quartet is engaging in more accurately should be called a war process.

One should ask why the Quartet craves statehood for the P.A., when the P.A. obviously seeks conquest.


A headline in the Israeli daily Haaretz was, "Survey finds nearly half of U.S. voters support total settlement building freeze."

Do Americans? Question 4 asked, "As part of a Middle Eastern peace agreement, should Palestinian leaders be required to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state?"

Question 5 asked: "As part of a Middle Eastern peace agreement, should Israel be required to stop building new settlements in occupied Palestinian territory?"

Both questions are predicated on first having a peace agreement, and one in which the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) acknowledges' Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Based on that, people may think it is reasonable to stop building in a region that question 5 indicates now belongs to the Arabs. But the headline now, when there is no final peace agreement, and when the P.A. refuses to acknowledge the Jewish people's right to a Jewish state, may give readers the impression that Americans favor a Jewish building freeze now, when it is being demanded. The poll does not indicate that. A specific question would have to be asked to elicit Americans' opinion on whether they want a freeze before peace agreement and acknowledgment (IMRA, 3/20).

Suppose question three were like this, but adjusted by professional pollsters, "Since the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has violated all its agreements against terrorism and incitement to bigotry and refuses ever to acknowledge the legitimacy of a Jewish state, do you think that the P.A. would keep a final status peace agreement and honor any such acknowledgment in it?"

If those polled mostly thought the P.A. would not honor the terms of agreement, then their answers to questions 4 and 5 might mean less than the headline suggests and their answers might be different, too.


The whips and other representatives of eight of the nine Jewish parties in Israel's Knesset wrote a letter to U.S. Vice-President Biden how he can smooth relations between the two countries. They suggested he work to free Jonathan Pollard from U.S. prison in honor of Passover and of underlying good relations between the two countries (IMRA, 3/20).


Israeli PM Netanyahu caved in to most of the demands that the U.S. set as the price for the Administration not to snub him when he comes to Washington. He agreed to "suspend" Jewish housing construction in parts of Jerusalem, and to discuss the major issues during the U.S. shuttle negotiations with Israel and the U.S., to ease the blockade of Gaza. [Israel had wanted the shuttle negotiations just to lay the groundwork for face-to-face negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). The U.S. calls these concessions confidence-building for the P.A..

Secretary of State Clinton called Netanyahu's concessions "constructive."

Why does the U.S. want the shuttle negotiations to take up the core issues? Dr. Aaron Lerner, head of IMRA, believes that the reason is so that the U.S. can inject its own policy ideas (IMRA, 3/20).

Nobody asks the P.A. to make concessions for confidence-building for Israel nor even to implement the terms of its prior agreements with Israel. The P.A. continues to honor terrorism, so what confidence can there be that it will make peace?

The U.S. policy ideas would benefit the Arabs. In a world hostile to Israel, and Clinton's restrained response further shows that the Obama administration remains hostile to Israel, Israel makes a mistake in letting the U.S., the Quartet, and any Muslim state act as mediator in negotiations. Those mediators represent Israel's enemy. They are not neutral ("honest") brokers.

In caving into U.S. demands, Netanyahu does not serve his country nor the U.S.. That is because the U.S. is enabling an unrepentant, religiously imperialist Palestinian Authority to gain sovereign war power in behalf of jihad. The U.S. is a victim of the jihad. The U.S. is undermining itself.

Netanyahu is notorious for caving in to outside pressure. But the U.S. did not distinguish itself with threatening to snub him and snubbing other foreign leaders. This is petty and in some cases boomerangs on the U.S..

Some readers missed the point that the U.S. blew up a minor misunderstanding about a few houses not because there were grounds for indignation but as a pretext for making the subsequent demands. The housing is a minor issue, because negotiations will determine final status regardless of houses. But this is the way the State Dept. conducts its machinations.

P.S.: The New York Times of 3/21 reports differences of opinion over how much and what Netanyahu conceded, and whether he is assuring his people one thing but doing another.


Secretary of State Clinton finds Israeli PM Netanyahu's make-up offers to the U.S. "useful and productive." She "...agreed with a BBC interviewer that her 'escalated tone' had paid off." (Ethan Bronner, NY Times, 3/21, A12.)

How calculating she sounds! This adds to the evidence that the U.S. indignation was misguided, then contrived in the second place, and finally, abused. Is this how American officials should conduct themselves? Can they be trusted, if they believe that the ends justify the means? Will their expressed indignation be taken seriously, hereafter?

Peace? U.S. interference helps perpetuate the Arab-Israel conflict. The U.S. underwrites UNRWA mission to keep Palestinian Arabs dependent on welfare. The U.S. halts Israeli armies defeating Arab aggression and rearms Arabs for another round.

View this philosophically. Human wisdom seems to be diminishing. Ancient Jewish scholars seem like giants to modern ones. America's founding fathers appears all the wiser, as modern American politicians come to be seen as our "foundering fathers." The government greases our economy for a crash, from which the people expect that same government to revive it.

If the ancient Greeks operated as we do, they would have lost their freedom to the Persian invaders. Sparta would not have acted unilaterally to thwart the Persian advance. It would have waited for dialog with the Persian Emperor and for allies collective confirmation of Spartan policy. The Spartan forces' lawyers would have told them they were killing Persian troops disproportionately. The Marathon would not have been run, because the stress test would not have been passed. Greece would have let their armies grow obsolete, in order to subsidize housing.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Bill Warner, March 21, 2010.

March 3, 2010
A Pakistani court convicted a Christian couple, Munir Masih and Ruqqiya Bibi, to 25 years in prison for touching the Koran without washing their hands.

March 4, 2010
Egyptian sharia court acquits Muslims who beheaded a Christian.

March 5, 2010
Gaza Strip
From MEMRI: Rome will be conquered by Islam says preacher on Al Aqsa TV.

March 7, 2010
Muslims attack a Christian village and kill more than 100 people. Update HERE. And MORE. And HERE.

March 7, 2010
A time-line of Muslim attacks on Christians in Nigeria, beginning in the year 2000.

March 9, 2010
Christian villagers are under siege by Muslims in Upper Egypt.

March 9, 2010
Protestant clergyman tortured for "converting Muslims" An anti-Protestant crackdown is underway in Isfahan. The regime's fight against proselytising is coupled with fears that Christian gatherings might host its opponents.

March 9, 2010
Pakistan (Hat Tip JihadWatch.org)
In the weeks following a February attack on Christian churches and homes in Pakistan's largest city, police have questioned 40 Christians and arrested five, according to a report published by the Fides news agency.

March 12, 2010
A Christian maid is raped and burned alive.

March 13, 2010
Three thousand muslims attack a Coptic Christian community and injure 25 people including women and children.

March 13, 2010
A video of the history and background of the persecution of the Egyptian Copts.

March 13, 2010 (Hat Tip Islamineurope.blogspot.com)
The Home Office was accused of discriminating against Christian groups after it emerged a Muslim police group has received at least six times more funding than a Christian one.

March 14, 2010
A Muslim teacher sexually assaulted a Coptic Christian girl at school.

March 17, 2010
Muslims who convert to Christianity face persecution by the state and rejection by their families.

March 17, 2010
In its official statement in honor of International Women's Day, the Fatah movement listed a group of "Palestinian" women of whom it is proud: Martyrs, fighters, prisoners and the Virgin Mary. Turning Virgin Mary and Jesus from Judeans (Jews) into "Palestinians" is a basic part of the Palestinian Authority's revision of history.

March 17, 2010
Attackers killed 12 people Wednesday morning in a small Christian village in central Nigeria, officials said, cutting out most of the victims' tongues in the latest violence in a region where religious fighting already has killed hundreds this year.

March 17, 2010
Yaqub Adam, a 54-year-old father was hit by a hail of bullets fired from a pistol with a silencer. He was murdered near the shop where he worked as a glassmaker.

March 17, 2010
After 14 years on the air, the government shuts down the only Palestinian Christian TV station. Located about 350 metres from Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, the station broadcast shows with social, religious, economic and cultural content.

March 18, 2010
Egyptian security forces have arrested 13 Coptic Christians — including four minors, subsequently released — victims of the attack on 12 March. They are being charged with illegal religious assembly, damage to public property, arson and assault. About a dozen Muslims, from a total of 2000 perpetrators, have been detained over the assault against 400 Coptic faithful at the Church of St. Michael in Mersa Matrouh.

March 18, 2010
Five Muslims ransacked the house of an impoverished Christian last month and angrily beat his daughters in an effort to get the family to withdraw rape charges.

March 19, 2010
Daniel Dhani Ram fled to Canada from Pakistan with his two daughters after Muslim extremists abducted and tortured him for 10-hours because he refused to convert to Islam.

March 19, 2010
Canings and church firebombings have some wondering whether the nation's Muslims are becoming more conservative and less tolerant of Christians and other minority groups.

March 19, 2010
Movement for the Survival of Plateau People (MOSOPP) has called for protection against genocide due to the Jos jihad.

March 20, 2010
Christian man is fighting for his life after Muslim leaders backed by police burned him alive for refusing to convert to Islam, while his wife was raped by police officers.

March 20, 2010
Assyrians in Australia rally in support of Egypt's persecuted Copts.

Bill Warner is Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. Contact him at bw@politicalislam.com and visit their website at http://www.politicalislam.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, March 21, 2010.

What M.Begin said to the US when it was unhappy with the annexation of the Golan

Twenty-seven years ago, the Knesset, by a two-thirds majority, passed the Golan Heights Law which extends Israeli law to the Golan Heights. With its passing, the US declared that it would "punish Israel".

PM Begin did not wish to stand by and allow the "punishment" to pass without comment. He issued a statement on 20 December 1981 that he read to the US Ambassador to Israel, read to the Cabinet and issued to the public. In it he says:

Statement by Prime Minister Begin on U.S. Measures Against Israel, 20 December 1981.

In an unprecedented move, Mr. Begin summoned the United States ambassador to Israel, and read to him the following statement. It was later read to the cabinet and issued to the public. Mr. Begin complained that the U.S. had punished Israel three times in the past six months. Israel was no. "vassal state" or a "banana republic." He also hinted of anti-Semitic overtones in some of the punitive measures taken by the United States.


Three times during the past six months, the U.S. Government has "punished" Israel.

On June 7 we destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor "Osirak" near Baghdad. I don't want to mention to you today from whom we received the final information that this reactor was going to produce atomic bombs. We had no doubt about that: therefore our action was an act of salvation, an act of national self-defense in the most lofty sense of the concept. We saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including tens of thousands of children.

Nonetheless, you announced that you were punishing us — and you left unfilled a signed and sealed contract that included specific dates for the supply of (war) planes.

Not long after, in a defensive act — after a slaughter was committed against our people leaving three dead (including an Auschwitz survivor) and 29 were injured we bombed the PLO headquarters in Beirut.

You have no moral right to preach to us about civilian casualties. We have read the history of World War Two and we know what happened to civilians when you took action against an enemy. We have also read the history of the Vietnam war and your phrase "body-count". We always make efforts to avoid hitting civilian populations, but sometimes it is unavoidable — as was the case in our bombing of the PLO headquarters.

We sometimes risk the lives of our soldiers to avoid civilian casualties.

Nonetheless, you punished us: you suspended delivery of F-15 planes.

A week ago, at the instance of the Government, the Knesset passed on all three readings by an overwhelming majority of two-thirds, the "Golan Heights Law."

Now you once again declare that you are punishing Israel.

What kind of expression is this — "punishing Israel"? Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we youths of fourteen who, if they don't behave properly, are slapped across the fingers?

Let me tell you who this government is composed of. It is composed of people whose lives were spent in resistance, in fighting and in suffering. You will not frighten us with "punishments". He who threatens us will find us deaf to his threats. We are only prepared to listen to rational arguments.

You have no right to "punish" Israel — and I protest at the very use of this term.

You have announced that you are suspending consultations on the implementation of the memorandum of understanding on strategic cooperation, and that your return to these consultations in the future will depend on progress achieved in the autonomy talks and on the situation in Lebanon.

You want to make Israel a hostage of the memorandum of understanding.

I regard your announcement suspending the consultations on the memorandum of as the abrogation (by you) of the memorandum. No "sword of Damocles" is going to hang over our head. So we duly take note of the fact that you have abrogated the memorandum of understanding.

The people of Israel has lived 3,700 years without a memorandum of understanding with America — and it will continue to live for another 3,700. In our eyes it (i.e., the U.S. suspension) is an abrogation of the memorandum.

We will not agree that you should demand of us to allow the Arabs of East Jerusalem to take part in the autonomy elections — and threaten us that if we don't consent you will suspend the memorandum.

You have imposed upon us financial punishments — and have (thereby) violated the word of the President. When Secretary Haig was here he read from a written document the words of President Reagan that you would purchase 200 million dollars worth of Israel arms and other equipment. Now you say it will not be so.

This is therefore a violation of the President's word. Is it customary? Is it proper?

You cancelled an additional 100 million dollars. What did you want to do — to "hit us in our pocket"?

In 1946 there lived in this house a British general by the name of Barker. Today I live here. When we fought him, you called us "terrorists" — and we carried on fighting. After we attacked his headquarters in the requisitioned building of the King David Hotel, Barker said: "This race will only be influenced by being hit in the pocket" — and he ordered his soldiers to stop patronizing Jewish cafes.

To hit us in the pocket — this is the philosophy of Barker. Now I understand why the whole great effort in the Senate to obtain a majority for the arms deal with Saudi Arabia was accompanied by an ugly campaign of anti-Semitism.

First, the slogan was sounded "Begin or Reagan?" — and that meant that whoever opposes the deal is supporting a foreign prime minister and is not loyal to the President of the United States. And thus Senators like Jackson, Kennedy, Packwood and of course Boschwitz are not loyal citizens.

Then the slogan was sounded "We should not let the Jews determine the foreign policy of the United States." What was the meaning of this slogan? The Greek minority in the U.S. did much to determine the Senate decision to withhold weapons from Turkey after it invaded Cyprus. No one will frighten the great and free Jewish community of the U.S., no one will succeed in cowing them with anti-Semitic propaganda. They will stand by our side. This is the land of their forefathers — and they have a right and a duty to support it.

Some say we must "rescind" the law passed by the Knesset. "To rescind" is a concept from the days of the Inquisition. Our forefathers went to the stake rather than "rescind" their faith.

We are not going to the stake. Thank God. We have enough strength to defend our independence and to defend our rights.

If it were up to me (alone) I would say we should not rescind the law. But as far as I can judge there is in fact no one on earth who can persuade the Knesset to rescind the law which it passed by a two-thirds majority.

Mr. Weinberger — and later Mr. Haig — said that the law adversely affects UN Resolution 242. Whoever says that has either not read the Resolution or has forgotten it, or has not understood it.

The essence of the Resolution is negotiation to determine agreed and recognized borders. Syria has announced that it will not conduct negotiations with us, that it does not and will not recognize us — and thus removed from Resolution 242 its essence. How, therefore, could we adversely affect 242?

As regards the future, please be kind enough to inform the Secretary of, State that the Golan Heights Law will remain valid. There is no force on earth that can bring about its rescission.

As for the contention that we surprised you, the truth is that we did not want to embarrass you. We knew your difficulties. You come to Riyadh and Damascus. It was President Reagan who said that Mr. Begin was right — that had Israel told the U.S. about the law (in advance) the U.S. would have said no. We did not want you to say no — and then go ahead and apply Israeli law to the Golan Heights.

Our intention was not to embarrass you.

As regards Lebanon, I have asked that the Secretary of State be informed that we will not attack, but if we are attacked, we will counterattack.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/ Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/ 1981-1982/91%20Statement%20by%20Prime%20Minister% 20Begin%20on%20US%20Measure

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, March 21, 2010.

While the Obama Administration is fiddling over the construction of apartments in Jerusalem, the Middle East is burning. Yet these other issues don't attract the attention-and certainly not the action-required.

1. Iran is now allied with al-Qaida: General David Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, revealed a bombshell story that has been ignored: Iran is helping al-Qaida attack Americans.

Iran, he said in military-speak, provides "a key facilitation hub, where facilitators connect al Qaida's senior leadership to regional affiliates." Translation: Tehran is letting al-Qaida leaders travel freely back and forth to Pakistan and Afghanistan, using its territory as a safe haven, while permitting them to hold meetings to plan terrorist attacks for attacking U.S. targets and killing Americans. While nominally Iran sometimes takes these people into custody, that seems, Petraeus says, a fiction to fool foreigners.

Oh, and Petraeus added that Iran also helps the Taliban fight America in Afghanistan. Regarding Iraq, the general explains, "The Qods Force [an elite Iranian military group within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] also maintains its lethal support to Shia Iraqi militia groups, providing them with weapons, funding and training,"

So, Petraeus pointed out that Iran is helping al-Qaida against the United States and also, at times, Shia groups intended to be Iran's proxies for spreading its influence in Iraq. In effect, the Tehran regime is at war with the United States. Yet this point is not being highlighted, nor does it stir rage in the hearts of White House officials or strenuous attempts to counter this threat.

Meanwhile, Iran isn't just building apartments but nuclear weapons' facilities.

2. Lebanon being further integrated into Iran-Syria alliance

In an interview with al-Jazira television, Walid Jumblatt, formerly the roaring lion of the opposition, turns into a mouse and apologizes to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Asad:

"I said, at a moment of anger, what is improper and illogical against President Bashar Assad." And now he is begging for an invitation to Damascus where he can kiss the ring of the man whose father (Hafiz al-Asad) murdered his father (Kemal Jumblatt).

One cannot blame Walid Jumblatt nor Sa'd al-Hariri, leader of the March 14 coalition, whose father was murdered by Bashar himself and has already gone to Damascus to beg forgiveness.

But Jumblatt, leader of the main Druze community in Lebanon, was a man who not long ago denied comparing Bashar al-Asad to a dog by saying that to do so would be an insult to canines. Jumblatt was also the man who bragged about being a friend of the United States during his rebellious phase. No more.

Meanwhile, Hizballah, which enjoys veto power in Lebanon's government, isn't just building apartments, its building fortifications and importing record amounts of weapons.

3. It is now clear that Russia and China won't support sanctions on Iran. The administration's plan is in major trouble and there's no way out, except to do the most minimal possible sanctions and claim victory.

Russia openly defies the Obama Administration by insisting it will finish a nuclear plant for Iran, just when Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is visiting! This was a real slap in the face, much bigger strategically than the apartments' issue. But there will be no strong reaction from Washington.

According to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev: "We believe that [engagement with Iran is] not over yet, that we can still reach an agreement." So Russia still isn't ready to support sanctions and isn't building apartments in Iran but rather a nuclear reactor.

Same thing with China, whose Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang put it this way: "We believe there is still room for diplomatic efforts and the parties concerned should intensify those efforts." China isn't building apartments in Iran but developing oilfields and building a huge oil refinery, plus reportedly supplying weapons.

4. Despite U.S. concessions aimed to reduce Syria's alliance with Iran, their bond is getting stronger, as witnessed by Asad's invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Damascus and their signing of new cooperation agreements. During the press conference, Asad literally laughed at U.S. policy.

5. Increasing signs of Turkey's close cooperation with the Iran-Syria axis. Both Ahmadinejad and the official Syrian government newspaper now call Turkey an ally of Syria and Iran.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan sounds the same way, insisting that Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons, that Ahmadinejad is a "friend," and that the United States has no right to try to stop Iran from getting such weapons any way. The Turkish government isn't building just apartments but an alliance with Tehran and an increasingly Islamist regime at home.

So let's leave it to Ahmadinejad to summarize how things seem to Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, and lots of Arabs both pro- and anti-American:

The Americans, Ahmadinejad said, "not only have failed to gain any power, but also are forced to leave the region. They are leaving their reputation, image, and power behind in order to escape....The [American] government has no influence [to stop]....the expansion of Iran-Syria ties, Syria-Turkey ties, and Iran-Turkey ties — God willing, Iraq too will join the circle...."

In short, the regional situation is terrible. None of this really has much to do with Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian issues; none of this is going to change because U.S. policy is seen as being tough on Israel. What the Arabs want to see is whether U.S. policy is going to be tough on Iran and its allies.

The Obama Administration policy isn't making the radicals more moderate but rather — by feeding their arrogance and belief in American weakness — making them more aggressive. Every day the regional situation is becoming more dangerous, but the highest-level and highest-priority U.S. efforts seem to be largely over getting indirect Israel-Palestinian talks which everyone involved knows will produce nothing.

Something is seriously wrong here.

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

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 20, 2010.


Note it extends into Jordan (A.P. photo/Israel Resource Review)

Political notions can become popular and adopted, without foundation. Such is what happened with the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear weapons development. The NIE proved incorrect. It now may be too late for us.

Similarly, a notion that the PLO should be given a state has become popular and adopted, without reflection. It is time to reassess that notion before acting in haste. Statehood for the PLO is like a runaway train, already difficult to halt.

Proponents of statehood assert that there are no other alternatives to the status quo that seems to be drifting toward war, and that no alternatives have been stated. This is not true. Alternatives have been stated. The proposition is not all or nothing.

One alternative was stated by PM Netanyahu, ambiguously. He proposes pre-conditions that the Palestinian Authority eradicate terrorism and indoctrination in bigotry and jihad. He would accept a state without the right to militarize [so first it should have to demilitarize]. International law, however, does not hold a state to pre-statehood agreements, and recognizes the right of a sovereign power to provide for its defense. Netanyahu's plan will not work.

A little known, but related fact is that even treaties can be abrogated, under international law, if they are based on error in fact or circumstances have changed.

Suppose the PLO does gain sovereign power. It would become a pariah state. It probably would require foreign troops to patrol it. It would be an irredentist, terrorist ally of Iran. It would foster if not direct terrorist attacks on Israel. But Israel would not be able to send forces in readily to destroy rocket labs, as it did recently, without being accused of violating international law protecting sovereign states. [We have seen the UN hostile to Israel self-defense against Gaza, even though Gaza does not have sovereignty.]

As such, the PLO would endanger the U.S.-friendly [Palestinian Arab] state of Jordan. After taking over Jordan, the PLO, Syria, and Iran could put great pressure on Iraq. The result could be a continuous Islamist presence in much of the Mideast. This would jeopardize U.S. national interests and security (my personal Israeli source explains).

Yes, and there is a limit to how much success we can let Islamist ideology enjoy and still retain the power to stop it from rolling over us. The Nazis and Imperial Japan started small, but grew in power. Nevertheless, the U.S. has no strategy for this. Europe is just letting itself slide into submission.


Israeli medics in Haiti (A.P./Joel Shalmoni)

UN Secretary-General Ban is campaigning for an end to the siege of Gaza. Although it is a partial siege, its opponents falsely attribute great hardship to it. 738,576 tons of humanitarian goods were transferred into the Gaza Strip in 2009. The aid flowed in before 2009 and keeps coming.

"The Gaza Strip has also been referred to as 'the world's largest prison', implying that residents are not being able to exit the territory. Yet in 2009, 10,544 patients and their companions left the Gaza Strip for medical treatment in Israel." [Others leave for pilgrimage.]

What is the UN role on financial aid? The "UN has provided $200 million in Gaza Strip aid following a military operation that reportedly claimed 1,300 fatalities among a population of less than 1.5 million," but actually "provided only $10 million to natural disaster victims in Haiti as of the end of January, an earthquake that claimed the lives of over 230,000 people and affected over 3 million." Nor have Haitians attacking neighboring civilians for almost a decade.

The U.S. pledged $900 million in war relief to Gaza; $700 million in earthquake relief to Haiti. Since the war, Gazans fired hundreds more rockets into Israel (Prof Steven Plaut, 3/18 from Jacob Shrybman,Assistant Director of the Sderot Media Center)


PM Netanyahu's refusal to ban Jewish construction in Jerusalem is said to have driven President Obama into a rage. That cool cucumber? The professed anger is too disproportionate to the minor issue of housing to warrant rage. "Obama himself claims that he has launched a political war against Israel in the interest of promoting peace. But this claim, too, does not stand up to scrutiny."

On Friday, Obama ordered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to present Netanyahu with a four-part ultimatum on pain of Administration boycott of visiting Israeli officials:

  1. Rescind approval of the housing units in Ramat Shlomo, Jerusalem.

  2. Prohibit all construction for Jews in Jerusalem neighborhoods built since 1967.

  3. Show the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) that Israel wants peace — release hundreds of convicted Arab terrorists [to resume war?]. [Do not ask the P.A. to show it wants peace.]

  4. Agree to negotiate all substantive issues, including cession of Jerusalem's Jewish neighborhoods constructed since 1967 and in which half a million Israelis live) and admit into Israel millions of hostile foreign Arabs. Israel policy is to negotiate substantive issues only face-to-face.

Obama's ultimatum makes clear that his goal is not mediating peace. The new demands "...follow the months of American pressure that eventually coerced Netanyahu into announcing both his support for a Palestinian state and a 10-month ban on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. No previous Israeli government had ever been asked to make the latter concession."

"Netanyahu was led to believe that in return for these concessions Obama would begin behaving like the credible mediator his predecessors were. But instead of acting like his predecessors, Obama has behaved like the Palestinians. Rather than reward Netanyahu for taking a risk for peace, Obama has, in the model of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, pocketed Netanyahu's concessions and escalated his demands. This is not the behavior of a mediator. This is the behavior of an adversary."

The P.A. builds on Administration hostility to Israel, to add to the pressure. The P.A. has increased its incitement to violence; riots and rockets followed. Thus the U.S. is not promoting peace. Then why is Obama manufacturing a crisis with Israel?

  1. To explain the failure of Obama's Iran policy. Failure — why else are "Iran and its proxies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza continuing their anti-U.S. activity" Administration officials insinuated that the reason is the announcement of housing construction for Jews in Jerusalem. The Obama doctrine is that "...if Israel simply returned to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, Iran's centrifuges would stop spinning, and Syria, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hizbullah, Hamas and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards would all beat their swords into plowshares." [This contention sounds silly on its face, and no connection was shown.]

  2. To maintain the failed Iran policy. Obama may be trying to extract a promise that Israel would not attack Iran's nuclear facilities without U.S. permission, which would not be granted, so that Iran may build its nuclear weapons unhindered. U.S. officials have asked that of PM Netanyahu. Netanyahu refused. Since quiet diplomacy failed with Netanyahu, perhaps noisy diplomacy would succeed.

  3. "Obama's advisers told friendly reporters that Obama wants to bring down Netanyahu's government. By making demands Netanyahu and his coalition partners cannot accept, Obama hopes to either bring down the government and replace" it with an outright leftist one or get the supposedly right-wing parties to leave the coalition so leftist ones replace them. Leftists have offered to divide Jerusalem.

  4. Obama is turning U.S. policy anti-Israel. "Obama's constant attempts to cultivate relations with" Iran, Syria, and Turkey "make clear that he views developing US relations with these anti-American regimes as a primary foreign policy goal."

    Those leaders demand that Obama abandon its alliance with Israel. Obama has some anti-Israel senior foreign policy advisers. They keep declaring Israel obstructionist and "defiant." Their idea is to erode popular American support for Israel, so he can break openly with it. [In domestic policy, too, Obama presents ruinous proposals, and then calls critics "obstructionist."

  5. Obama may be using his phony crisis to justify presenting his own plan. This plan probably would insist that Israel has no right to Jerusalem, must withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, and should expel 700,000 Jews living on the other side.

    He then could recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state after Israel does not agree to excessive P.A. demands [and without the P.A. every having complied with Oslo and Road Map requirements to eradicate terrorism and the indoctrination in bigotry that breaks out in terrorism. Then Obama may place U.S. forces in the new state to protect it from Israel [actually to protect it from Israeli retaliation against terrorism].

    "Both Obama's behavior and the policy goals it indicates make it clear that Netanyahu's current policy of trying to appease Obama by making concrete concessions is no longer justified. Obama is not interested in being won over."

What recourse has Netanyahu? "Netanyahu must ensure that he maintains popular domestic support for his government to scuttle Obama's plan to overthrow his government. So far, in large part due to Obama's unprecedented nastiness, Netanyahu's domestic support has held steady and Kadima's has fallen.

Netanyahu must continue to avoid any personal attacks on Obama, because he cannot win American public opinion against a sitting U.S. president that way. "Netanyahu must limit his counter-offensive to a defense of Israel's interests and his government's policies."

"Netanyahu's goal must be to strengthen and increase the majority of Americans who support Israel. To this end, Netanyahu must go to Washington next week and speak at he annual AIPAC conference as planned, despite the administration's threat to boycott him."

While in Washington, Netanyahu should meet with every Congressman and Senator who wishes to meet with him as well as every administration member who seeks him out." He should give as many interviews "...as possible in order to bring his message directly to the American people." Carolyn Glick in (IMRA, 3/19).


5th day of Arab stone-throwing (A.P./Nasser Shiyoukhi)

Israeli troops stationed in Hebron often jog for exercise at night, when it is cooler. A group got lost, asked an Arab the way back to the Israeli sector, was told to go in the opposite direction, and found themselves facing a crowd that screamed, pushed, and threw rocks at them. Only one soldier had a weapon, and was reluctant to use it. Why? Because IDF orders are not to fire without higher authority, or get punished. The troops had to fight for their lives hand-to-hand. They found a way to run out. They had to run from the Arabs. Three soldiers and three rioters were hospitalized.

Arabs also threw rocks at a house in Hebron owned by Jews and then at the troops. The troops were unable, by their orders, to do anything about it. Another humiliation. This is the eve of the Passover holiday commemorating liberation of the Hebrews from foreign rule, but here is the Israeli army acting helpless before an enemy people.

The Arabs show no desire for peace.

What was the Army commanders' solution? Stop jogging at night. Still another humiliation.

By contrast, Arabs enter the Jewish Quarter without safety concerns (David Wilder, Hebron Jewish community spokesman, 3/19)

Sec. of State Clinton demands that Israel show its desire for peace. Why doesn't she ask that of the Arabs?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, March 20, 2010.

Long before the November 2008 election brought him to the White House, President Obama made it clear that he expected Israel to return to the '49, U. N.-imposed armistice lines — not political borders — which had turned it into a 9-15 mile wide, sub-rump state. Repeatedly, he said that Israel would be crazy — his own words — if it rejected the alleged Saudi Peace Plan.

A key provision of that plan — which Arabs say can't and won't be modified — calls for Israel to ignore the secure, defensible borders (and thus territorial compromise) promised to it by UNSC Resolution 242 in the wake of the '67 War and for it to return to those earlier '49 Auschwitz/armistice lines instead. I just traveled farther than that to take my two Labrador Retrievers to the dog park...President George W. Bush once commented that Texas has some driveways longer than that.

Another provision states that Israel must also allow itself to be flooded by millions of alleged Arab refugees raised on Jew-hatred over the decades and created in the first place as a result of numerous Arab countries invading the reborn, miniscule state of the Jews in 1948. More Jews wound up fleeing "Arab" lands in the aftermath of this invasion than Arabs who fled in the opposite direction...

The difference?

Arabs already had six million square miles of territory (mostly conquered and forcibly Arabized from various non-Arab peoples) and numerous states to call their own (twenty-one states to date), and Jews had nada, zilch, zero up until Israel's rebirth — which the American State Department, along with Arabs, tried real hard to prevent.

So, despite all of the assurances Israel had gotten from American presidents, secretaries of state, and so forth over the years since it turned the tables on another Arab attempt on its life in 1967, the Obama Administration is now determined to ignore all of this and force Israel to yield to its demands.

The episode involving the announcement of Israeli intentions to build more housing units (in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem) at the same time of Vice-President Joe Biden's recent visit is about this very issue.

While an argument can be made whether it was or wasn't wise to time this announcement as it was done, one should keep this larger issue in mind.

When would the timing have been "good" for Israel to tell the Gang of Three (Obama, Biden, and Clinton), which then spewed venom upon it for not caving in to what they demanded — forsaking the territorial compromise intrinsic in UNSC Resolution 242 — that it would not expose its people and endanger its very existence this way?

Good timing or not, the real and more troubling question is why would a bullying America place Israel into such a bind?

Why would an American president and his crew demand that Israel return to a situation which Presidents Johnson and Reagan, Secretary of State Shultz, Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and too many others to list here called suicidal and simply a recipe for renewed warfare?

Why would an American president and his crew act like the very letters Israel received from his predecessor, George W. Bush, dealing with the same issue regarding the creation of that territorial buffer did not even exist?

It is in this context that the events of the last week or so need to be understood.

Prime Minister Netanyahu simply said by this move (planned or accidental) that Israel, too, has minimal lines in the sand beyond which it will not retreat — regardless of who is tightening the screws.

The 22nd Arab state Obama promises for Arabs (and their second, not first, in the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine...Jordan sits upon some 80% of the total area) should not be created at the expense of the Jews' sole one.

That was the message Joe Biden received when he arrived in Bibi's Israel for a new round of Jew arm twisting — er, "negotiations." He expected prostration but got a dose of truth instead...

Now, also keep in mind that those proposed apartments aren't just anywhere — they're in Jerusalem ... probably the hottest of the potatoes to handle when it comes to Arab/Muslim Jew peacemaking.

Given all of this, apartments or not, it's time to review some candid facts regarding Jerusalem and those staking a claim to it, for, while Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have ties to the city, these ties are in no way "equal" — as politically incorrect it may be to say this these days.

In Jewish religious sources, for instance, Jerusalem is mentioned over 600 times. It is never mentioned even once in the Qur'an. It is alluded to in the latter in passages about the Hebrew Kings, David and Solomon, and the destruction of the Temples of the Jews. Arabs deny a Jewish Temple ever existed there. They call the Temple Mount "Buraq's Mount," after Muhammad's supposedly winged horse with the head of a woman. But a mention of Jerusalem itself is nowhere to be found in the Muslim holy book...interesting, since it was recorded in many other places besides the writings of the Jews themselves for over 1,500 years before the rise of Islam.

Furthermore, religious claims of both Christians and Muslims to Jerusalem exist primarily because of those religions' links to the Jews.

Political claims — based upon facts on the ground — are, admittedly, more complicated. Even so, throughout over three millennia since King David conquered it from the Jebusites, renamed it, and gave it its Jewish character, no other people except the Jews has ever made Jerusalem their capital, despite its conquest by many imperial powers, including that of the Arab caliphal successors to Muhammad as they burst out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E. and spread in all directions. Damascus and Baghdad were the capital seats of Arab caliphal imperial power, and Mecca and Medina the holy cities. And there was never ever an Arab state of "Palestine."

This is not to say that Jerusalem was ignored by its Arab Muslim conquerors (the Umayyads built the Dome of the Rock/Mosque of 'Umar on the Temple Mount of the Jews, making it Islam's allegedly third holiest city), but it is to say that Jerusalem was and is in no way the focus for Islam that it is for Jews and Judaism.

If the Vatican had been conquered this same way by Arab Muslim invaders, who then built a giant mosque in the center of it, would that mean that the Vatican was then as important to Muslims as it was to Roman Catholics? Or, more accurately, that Catholic claims were totally invalid?

The situation is far worse regarding Jerusalem...It involves an attempt by Arabs to deny the very national identity of Judeans/Jews as a people...a people with, admittedly, a very distinct set of religious and ethical beliefs (which, by the way, sired the above two daughter faiths).

Since David made Jerusalem his capital and it became the site of his son Solomon's Temple, Zion became the heart and soul of Jewish national and religious existence. Jews from all over the early diaspora made their pilgrimages and sent offerings to its Temple. "By the Rivers of Babylon we wept..." and "If I forget thee O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning..." were just a few of the many Biblical expressions of the Jews for Zion. Such yearning persisted throughout subsequent millennia in the Diaspora as well. "Next Year in Jerusalem " sustained the Jew throughout countless massacres, degradations, expulsions, and humiliations — both in the Muslim East as well as in the Christian West — culminating in the Holocaust.

There is no Muslim parallel to these claims, despite efforts to portray Palestinian Arabs (many, if not most, of whom were new arrivals — settlers — in the land themselves), as the "new Jews."

Jews, coming from a hundred different lands (including those native to Israel itself), didn't have almost two dozen states to potentially choose from and suffered dearly for this statelessness.

Most Muslim Arabs want sole rights over Jerusalem the same way they want sole rights over Tel Aviv. In their eyes, only they have legitimate political rights anywhere in a region which they regard as simply purely Arab patrimony and the Dar ul-Islam. North Africa's native Amazigh people ("Berbers" — some thirty-five million of them), who pre-date the Arabs there by millennia, are faced with this same subjugating Arab attitude as they are not even allowed to speak their own native language nor, increasingly, even allowed to name their own children with non-Arab names. Tens of millions of other non-Arab peoples face similar problems as well.

Shifting gears, regardless of whatever theology one clings to, Jesus' historical experiences in Roman-occupied Judaea and Jerusalem were those of a Jew living under extremely precarious conditions. Thousands of his countrymen had already been killed, crucified, and the like in the subjugation/pacification process. The contemporary Roman and Roman-sponsored historians themselves — Tacitus, Josephus, Dio Cassius, and others as well — had much to say about all of this.

Consider, for example, these few of many telling quotes from Vol.II, Bk.V, The Works Of Tacitus:

Vespasian succeeded to the throne...it infuriated his resentment that the Jews were the only nation who had not yet submitted...Titus was appointed by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea... 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 oppression led to open revolts of the Jews to rid their land of their mighty pagan conqueror — wars which would eventually lead the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, to rename the land itself from Judaea to Syria Palaestina in 135 C.E. in an attempt to stamp out any remaining hopes for Jewish independence and national existence. Judaea was thus renamed after the Jews' historic enemies, the Philistines, a non-Semitic sea people from the area around Crete, to further drive home the point.

For a modern analogy, imagine Lithuania as it was engulfed by the Soviet Union in the latter's heyday of power. Or a Hungarian freedom fighter or Greek partisan taking on the Soviets or the Nazis.

Think of the sympathy and admiration normally given to such situations...And now think about the treatment Jews have received over the ages for longing for this same freedom. Don't you know, they needed just a "Heavenly Jerusalem," not a life of human dignity. How unspiritual those Jews are!

Whatever Jesus did or did not mean in his alleged statement, "render unto Caesar...," this passage and others in the New Testament have been used to belittle this same desire for worldly independence and freedom from oppression among the Jews.

Judaea Capta (not "Palaestina" Capta) coins were issued, and the towering Arch of Titus was erected after the first major revolt in 70 C.E. and shows, among other things, Romans carrying away the giant Menorah and other objects from the Jewish Temple that many, if not most, Arabs and other Muslims claim never existed. It stands in Rome to this very day to commemorate Rome 's victory over the Jews and Jewish Jerusalem. Open the url to my new book to see one of those coins on the book's cover http://q4j-middle-east.com

Another gear shift...

When Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, fled Mecca to Medina in 622 C.E. (the Hijrah), the inhabitants welcomed him. Medina had been developed centuries earlier as a thriving date palm oasis by Jews fleeing the Roman assault (the banu-Qurayzah and banu-al-Nadir tribes, etc.), and its mixed population of Jews and pagan Arabs had thus become conditioned for a native prophet speaking the word of G_d. Jews had so much influence in this area that, just to the south, Yemen had a series of Jewish kings not long before the birth of Muhammad.

Indeed, Muhammad learned much from the Jews.

While the actual timing of his decision on the direction of prayer may never be known, during his long sojourn with the Jews of Medina, his followers were instructed to pray towards Jerusalem. Early prominent Arab historians such as Jalaluddin came right out and stated that this was done primarily as an attempt to win support among the influential Jewish tribes (the "People of the Book") for Muhammad's religio-politcal claims.

It is from the Temple Mount of the Jews in Jerusalem that Muslims believe Muhammad ascended to Heaven on his winged horse. A mosque, the Dome of the Rock, would later be erected on this Jewish holy site after the Arab imperial conquest of the land in the 7th century C.E.

There is no doubt among objective scholars that Jews had an enormous impact on both Muhammad and the religion that he founded. The holy sites for Muslims in Jerusalem (i.e. the mosques erected on the Temple Mount of the Jews) are now deemed "holy" precisely because of the critical years Muhammad spent after the Hijrah with the Jews.

The Temple Mount had no prior meaning to pagan Arabs. Period...

While there was some early Christian influence as well, intense scholarship has shown that the Holy Law (Halakha) and Holy Scriptures of the Jews had a tremendous influence on the Qur'an, Islamic Holy Law (Shari'a), and so forth.

Muhammad's alleged "Jerusalem connection" was most likely not established until after the huge impact of his extended stay with his Jewish hosts. This was no mere coincidence...Muslim religious beliefs regarding Muhammad's alleged conversations with the Angel Gabriel (yes, that same Angel Gabriel of the Jews' Bible) notwithstanding.

When the Jews refused to recognize Muhammad as the "Seal of the Prophets," he turned on them with a vengeance.

Before long, with the exception of Yemen, there were virtually no Jews left on the Arabian Peninsula. The men were all massacred, and the women and children mostly enslaved. Additionally, the direction of prayer was changed away from Jerusalem and towards the Kaaba in Mecca instead...

To say that Jerusalem has the same meaning for Muslims as it has for Jews is to simply tell a lie.

In modern times, Jews constituted the majority of Jerusalem 's population from 1840 onwards.

When Jordanian Arabs — whose nation itself was formed from almost 80% of the original Mandate of Palestine issued to Britain on April 25, 1920 — seized East Jerusalem after their invasion of reborn Israel in 1948, they destroyed dozens of synagogues and thousands of Jewish graves, using tombstones to pave roads, build latrines, and so forth.

When Jews were denied access to their holy sites for almost two decades and not permitted in that part of Jerusalem, the whole world remained silent. Keep all of this in mind regarding the continuing problems Israel is having with the Gang of Three.

After Israel was forced to fight a defensive war in 1967 due to its being blockaded by Egypt 's Nasser at the Straits of Tiran (a casus belli) and other hostile acts, Jerusalem became reunited. Access to all peoples and faiths subsequently became unhindered and has remained so to this day. Yet it was at that very moment that much of the world chose to rediscover Jerusalem — demanding its re-division, internationalization, and so forth.

The American whitewashed "good cops" of Fatah's Abbas have simply decided to play the game better than the "bad cops" of Hamas. The former's late leader, Arafat, indeed taught them well. The millions of dollars he still has in Swiss bank accounts, courtesy of the West, are legendary. It pays to be portrayed as the Arab "moderates."

That Israel now finds itself with leaders with the backbone to resist such unfair pressure from its "friends" — involving Jerusalem or other issues — is a blessing, not an embarrassment.

For centuries, Jews were forcibly converted, expelled, massacred, humiliated, demonized, inquisitioned, ghettoized, declared to the "deicide people," killers of prophets, kilab yahud (Jew dogs) and such in both the Muslim East as well as the Christian West.

They are determined that their rights — building or otherwise — in the sole capital of the sole, microscopic, reborn state that they possess will not be sacrificed on behalf of any 22nd state created for Arabs, especially since the latter show, in poll after poll, that regardless of how much more Jews will bare their necks for peace, Arabs will not accept the legitimacy of a viable Jewish Israel anyway.

As sad as it is to have to say, the actions of the current folks in Washington will only bring shame (or worse) upon our great nation down the line... http://q4j-middle-east.com

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 Jonathan Schanzer, March 20, 2010.

Saturday is the Iranian holiday of Norwuz, marking both the first day of spring and the first day of the Iranian calendar. This year, the holiday is also a milestone for Americans. We've been waiting a full year for President Obama's diplomatic overtures to persuade the Iranians to scrap their plans for a nuclear weapon.

Now that a year has passed, and Obama's "outstretched hand" has not been grasped, it's time for tougher measures.

On last year's Norwuz, March 20, 2009, President Obama issued an historic video to some 66 million Iranians. The president emphasized that despite past strained relations, the Iranian new year was a time to remember the two countries' commonalities. Obama stressed that he was "committed to diplomacy." Ali Akbar Javanfekr, a senior Iranian official, responded that his country could not ignore the "previous hostile and aggressive attitude of the United States."

By the end of the president's first 100 days in office, in April 2009, the Iranians showed no signs of slowing their march toward a nuclear bomb. Nevertheless, the administration made it clear that it was still holding out hope. Despite calls for tougher sanctions against the Mullahs from inside the beltway and beyond, Obama remained convinced that diplomacy would work.

Two months later, Obama again appealed to Iran to step back from the brink. During his much-publicized speech to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, 2009, he reiterated his willingness to forge a new relationship with Iran without preconditions.

Days later, on June 12, Iran erupted in protest after Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rigged his presidential reelection. Obama remained silent. He insisted that the U.S. not meddle in Iranian affairs — yet another overture to the Iranians that the U.S. sought to renew ties. As he himself stated, "the last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States."

By September, news of advances in Iran's nuclear program sent shock waves through the international community. President Obama, along with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy, announced at the G-20 Summit that Iran had been "building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years."

Soon after, Sarkozy leaked the fact that Obama had long known about Iran's latest violations, and inexplicably failed to challenge the Mullahs earlier that month at the United Nations. Obama, in fact, asked Sarkozy and Brown to hide it from the public so that he could deliver a general speech about nuclear disarmament.

In an attempt to restore confidence at home, Obama publicly called upon Iran in October to come clean about its program and cooperate with the IAEA and accept the offer to have Iran's uranium shipped to another country for enrichment. At this point, the President finally warned that he was not ready to "negotiate indefinitely," and threatened "increased pressure."

The tough talk didn't last long. On the 30th anniversary of the Tehran hostage crisis (when Iranian radicals held 52 American hostages for 444 days), Obama released a statement on November 3 affirming America's willingness to move past the mistrust and confrontation, and even stated his belief that Iran had a right to a peaceful nuclear program.

Congress, by this point, had endured enough. In December, the House passed the "Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA)," which called for sanctions against Iran's gasoline suppliers and other companies that aided its gasoline supply chain. In January, the Senate passed its version, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, which mirrored IRPSA, but also went after Iran's Revolutionary Guards, who are the primary stakeholders in the Iranian energy sector.

For his part, the president made no mention of these landmark legislative efforts during his first State of the Union address on January 27. Rather, he claimed that his own diplomatic efforts have strengthened the U.S. negotiating position with Iran over its nuclear program.

After a long year of failed diplomatic gestures, the Mullahs are decidedly closer to the bomb. China, a crucial Iranian trade partner, recently stated bluntly that it was "concerned about the current situation." British Foreign Minister David Milliband echoed his "lack of confidence" in Iranian intentions.

New years are moments for reflection, and for resolutions. It's time for the president to shepherd the energy sanctions that Congress has drawn up, and to muster the resolve to stop Iran's nuclear quest.

Let us usher this Norwuz in as a new year of Iran policies, not just a new year in Iran.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism analyst for the U.S. Treasury Department, is director of policy for the Jewish Policy Center and author of Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. He is vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Contact him at js@defenddemocracy.org.

This article is archived at
http://schanzer.pundicity.com/7089/our-new-years-resolution- for-iran-slap-them-with

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, March 19, 2010.

The headlines read as follows: Near Lynch in Hevron; Soldiers Blame Orders (Israelnationalnews); IDF troops assaulted after wandering into Hebron's Arab area (Haaretz); Commander's error prompts Hebron humiliation (ynetnews); Those are the Israeli headlines.

What happened in Hebron yesterday can surely be defined, as above, as humiliation. But it is much more than that. It is a "Chilul HaShem" or in English, a desecration of G-d's name. A supreme goal of a Jew is "Kiddush HaShem," meaning to sanctify G-d's name. Yesterday's events were the direct opposite.

Soldiers stationed in Hebron can frequently be seen 'running in the streets,' i.e., keeping in shape, running, stretching and exercising. Late yesterday afternoon a group of soldiers left the 'normal' running area and found themselves in one of the "other" neighborhoods of the city, still occupied only by Arabs, still without any Jewish representation. One of the soldiers, not sure where they were, asked a local resident how to get back to the "Jewish area." That 'friendly Arab' pointed in the opposite direction from where they needed to go, and the group found themselves lost, deep in Hebron. Due to the fact that they were exercising, only one of the soldiers was carrying a weapon.

Before they knew it, the group was surrounded by a large group of Arabs, who began screaming, pushing and throwing rocks. The one soldier with ammunition feared to use it; orders prevent a weapon from being used without explicit permission from higher ranking officers, unless it's really a case of 'do or die.' The soldiers, after battling the Arabs in hand-to-hand combat, took off, fleeing on foot, until finding their way out, and reaching the 'Jewish' part of the city.

Three troops were hospitalized as were three Arabs.

This is peace, goodwill, and a desire for mutual coexistence.

According to information I received from two sources, one of the conclusions reached by the Hebron military commander was to forbid running exercises at night anywhere in Hebron.

This is farcical. Israeli soldiers 'running away' from a group of attacking Arabs?! Israeli soldiers attacked because they were on the 'wrong side of the city?!' Israeli soldiers being forbidden to exercise at night for fear of entering the 'wrong side of the city?!' (Soldiers frequently exercise at night when it's cooler outside.)

What happens when Arabs come over to the "Jewish section' of Hebron? They have access to about 98% of the city. In a small area closed off for security reasons, bypass routes are provided. The Arabs coming into the "Jewish area" aren't attacked, kicked, threatened, beaten. They cross back and forth between the two sides of the city at will, without any problems. I've put together a short movie and photos showing Arabs coming over.

If I were making the decisions, I would demand that daily IDF exercise runs took place in the exact same area where the soldiers were attacked yesterday, providing 'extra security,' should it be deemed necessary. I would also make efforts to find the attackers and deal with them accordingly. It is unthinkable that Israeli soldiers are so attacked, without any IDF response.

Of course, the best response would be to rejoin the 'two sides of Hebron,' and immediately move Jews into all neighborhoods of the city, integrating Hebron and removing the humiliation of Jews being found 'in the wrong place.' Yet it seems such a solution will take some time to be implemented.

Unfortunately, such incidents are not, at present, an exception to the rule. Yesterday also, Arabs hurled rocks and bottles at Beit Hadassah. The IDF response was negligible. A neighbor of mine, who witnessed the attacks, told me that at one point soldiers in the area put their heads down and did not respond when rocks were thrown at them. The nauseating account of a soldier stationed in Hebron appeared on israelnationalnews.com earlier today, in which he describes how the IDF's hands are literally tied — they are forbidden from taking any actions, offensive or defensive, without expressed permission from high-ranking officers, even while being attacked. In many cases patrols are told to 'wait for reinforcements or get out of the area.' Again, Israeli soldiers being ordered to retreat, to run away, in the face of enemy attack.

All this while the State of Israel is coming under international attack from all corners of the world.

What's written in international press? "World powers demand Israeli settlement freeze. The Quartet of Mideast peacemakers "condemns" Israel's East Jerusalem building plan. (MSNBC); Israeli settlements threaten world security. Israelis should work toward a government of national unity, and not one beholden to the extreme right — whose policies threaten world security. (Christian Science Monitor).

These attacks, led by Obama, Biden, Hillary and Co. are aimed at forcing continued Israeli concessions. The Quartet's goal is a Palestinian state within 2 years, thereby ending the 'occupation...' Netanyahu's visit in Washington next week will undoubtedly be a gruesome labyrinth-like obstacle course, designed to squeeze him, leaving him with nothing, leaving Israel with nothing.

So far, even with criticism that can be leveled at the government, Netanyahu's been holding his own better than might have been expected. He could easily have folded on Jerusalem, but is continuing to express Israel's ancient, G-d-given rights to our eternal capital. Just as legitimate criticism is expressed when need be, I think, as the Prime Minister leaves for the United States, it is incumbent upon us to encourage and strengthen him, in an effort to prevent Israel's position from crumbling within the walls of the White House.

Let's all remind Bibi: next week, as we begin the holiday of Passover, we celebrate the liberation of our people from foreign slavery. Three thousand three hundred years later, let's continue forward, in that same direction, and not head backwards, into Pharaoh Obama's servitude.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, March 19, 2010.

A Magical Way to Move Kids: Tel Aviv University's School of Health Professionals developed therapeutic exercises

This comes from


Dr Dido Green uses magic to help a young patient regain movement in her left arm. (Credit: Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust)

ScienceDaily (Mar. 19, 2010) — It's often hard to motivate youngsters with physical disabilities. But a new approach from a Tel Aviv University researcher bridges the worlds of behavior and science to help kids with paralysis and motor dysfunction improve their physical skills and inner confidence — using a trick up her sleeve called "magic."

Dr. Dido Green of Tel Aviv University's School of Health Professionals developed an innovative yet remarkably simple series of therapeutic exercises for children and young adults based on sleight-of-hand tricks used by professional magicians. Dr. Green and her magicians used sponge balls, elastics and paper clips to teach the children how to perform the challenging, fun and engaging exercises.

She started her foundational research at the Evelina Children's Hospital funded by the Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital Charity, Performing Arts Programme in London.

Making physical therapy fun

"Children with motor disorders like hemiplegia — or paralysis on one side of the body — perform routine exercises with their hands and wrists to be able to carry out basic functions such as opening a door, doing up their zipper, or closing buttons," explains Dr. Green, an occupational therapist with a masters degree in clinical neuroscience and a Ph.D. in psychomotor development of children. "Not only did the kids get a kick out of the magic tricks, they loved doing the exercises every day."

Dr. Green hopes to create summer "magic camps" for disabled children in both the U.K. and Israel, and will further investigate the benefits of magic for improving motor development of children with disabilities.

Her initial research, now in the process of publication in a peer-reviewed journal, looked at a sample of nine children. "We had a hunch that learning magic tricks could do wonders for kids' movement problems, but we wanted to see if the kids would actually practice them," says Dr. Green.

The children practiced ten minutes a day over four to six weeks, resulting in a significant and measurable change in motor skills. "It was a big enough effect to make us want to marry the concept of magic with more specific treatment regimes important for motor learning," says Dr. Green.

In the next part of the study, Dr. Green will bridge the worlds of behavioral therapy with science. She plans not only to give a large group of U.K. and Israeli kids intensive magic training to help improve their motor skills, but also to look into their brains to see if there is a neurological effect.

Magic meets magnetic resonance imaging

"We'll be using functional MRIs to see how extensive practice — using the magic tricks as motivators — affects centers in the brain. Having information from the MRI can help us see what works, and for how long a treatment regime will need to be carried out to have sustained changes," says Dr. Green. One of the things she will measuring is the "plasticity" of the brain to see if activity of different brain areas changes over time as a result of the exercises.

Movement problems can occur in children with autism, spinal cord injuries, diseases affecting the central nervous system, or cerebral palsy. Some of these conditions can lead to hemiplegia. When Dr. Green retired from the stage following a career as a ballerina for the National Ballet of Canada and the Sadlers Wells Royal Ballet in London, she determined to inspire less fortunate children to gain or regain levels of basic functioning.

Adapted from materials provided by American Friends of Tel Aviv University.

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 19, 2010.


The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) had signed a peace agreement with Israel that included a commitment to end official bigotry and incitement to violence against Israel. It violated that agreement. The New York Times, however, did not carry stories on P.A. school incitement. [Not keeping its readers "fully informed.]

A U.S. lobbyist brought this to the attention of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Realizing that this issue would resonate within her constituency, she soon issued a statement on P.A. school incitement. It was published in the New York Daily News (from the lobbyist).

Sen. Brownback submitted S2737, a bill on moving the Embassy that tightens the language and removes the presidential waiver. Sen. Brownback is not running for re-election to the Senate. He is practicing self-imposed term limits (from a former lobbyist).

The prior Presidents may have noted that they would move the Embassy at the first opportunity, but they both had two terms and never found it opportune. Was their dissembling preferable to Obama's frankness?


Contending that the announcement by an Israeli Cabinet Minister of new housing in Jerusalem raises doubts whether Israel really wants to negotiate peace, some senior U.S. officials are considering whether the U.S. should offer its own plan for the conflict and when (David Sanger, Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 3/18, A10).

PM Netanyahu repeatedly offered to negotiate. Abbas spurned the offers or, encouraged by U.S. demands upon Israel, refused to negotiate unless those demands were met. Who then, is not serious about negotiating?

The question is what to negotiate. There the parties disagree. The Arabs have insatiable demands, based on their interpretation of Islam and their ideology that Israel, itself, rightfully is theirs. The one-sided Israeli concessions that the U.S. demands, while the Arabs retain the doctrine of exclusive Islamic control, would strengthen jihad and make war likelier. Since jihad is warring on the U.S., too, this would subvert U.S. national security.

Perhaps Obama manufactured this crisis not just to get more concessions for the Arabs out of Israel. He put the U.S. into a position where it can offer a plan without being considered intrusive.


Background to a dispute can put it in a new light, as Jonathan Rosenblum did for the U.S.-Israel dispute in yesterday's Yated Neeman.

The update finds that the Obama administration was looking for a pretext to denounce Israel and demand more concessions from it, in order to win foreign Muslim favor. Certainly the EU exploited the opportunity to do likewise. That would explain the obviously disproportionate and contrived indignation over a building phase announcement that was within stated Israeli policy, a policy that Sec. of State Clinton had admitted was an "unprecedented" concession. Hence she rejected repeated Israeli apologies.

"Imagine how the Americans would have reacted to an Israeli spokesman who questioned America's commitment to the bilateral relationship on the grounds that the Obama administration has still not taken one concrete step to neuter the Iranian nuclear threat. Every time one of the administration's deadlines for an Iranian response passes, we hear again about how the Secretary State will now start rounding up international support for sanctions, which will take anywhere from weeks to months to draft, it having apparently never occurred to anyone to draft such sanctions in advance just in case the Iranians ignored yet another deadline." [If Israel raised that point, it would have been correct. The Obama administration is duplicitous about this matter of national and international security.]

Mr. Rosenblum cites the hypocrisy of the Administration condemning Israel, which is willing to negotiate, and not objecting to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) refusals to negotiate or demanding more and more concessions to negotiate. Nor does the U.S. object to the P.A. commemorating a terrorist during Biden's visit to the region. Nor does anyone suggest that after having donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority, the P.A. should be willing to negotiate with Israel directly.

Further perspective is gained from the parents of Rachel Corrie, who say that U.S. diplomats assist and encourage them to sue Israel for damages. Their daughter was inadvertently slain by the Israeli bulldozer she was illegally trying to block from its work defending Israel from terrorism she supported. "...Corrie hated America as well as Israel — she was once photographed entertaining Palestinian children by burning an American flag..." Thus the State Dept. is looking for ways to put Israel in a poor light, the better to whittle it down in size and independence. [That long has been State Dept. policy.]

Nor is Clinton's aggressiveness toward Israel new. "She thus reverted to the hectoring tone of last June when she stressed that President Obama does not want to see a single porch extended anywhere beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines, including Jerusalem. Only with Israel and Honduras has she indulged in issuing orders in such an imperious manner."

Obama has a theory that U.S. friendliness with Israel undermines its policy with Muslim areas. "As reported in Yediot Ahronot, Vice-President Biden was explicit, albeit private, in this demonization of Israel as endangering American soldiers. 'What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us ... 'Biden was quoted as telling Prime Minister Netanyahu." Actually, the Taliban fight without regard to Israel..." [As I reported earlier, NY Times journalist Maureen Dowd thought Israel offensive to Biden because he is a "champion" of Israel.]

The Administration suggests that Netanyahu's policy of building in Jerusalem reflects right-wing views on his part or on the part of his Party. Actually, the left-wing Labor Party accepted his policy on that.

When Israel makes concessions to the Arabs, instead of making peace, the Arabs make more demands. [This is the nature of Arab culture, which considers concessions a sign of weakness they will take advantage of. Therefore, if the U.S. wants negotiations, it should stop giving the Arabs hopes of more concessions. If it wants peace, it should demand that the Arabs eradicate their indoctrination in religious bellicosity. It just works to beat Israel down.]

As for Palestinian Arab fantasies of Israel moving all Jews off land once owned by Arabs, a related case is instructive. "Just last week, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the claim of Greek Cypriots, who fled the Northern part of the island in 1974 for the return of their homes. The Court decision noted, "Generations have passed. The local population has not remained static... Much Greek-Cypriot property has changed hands at least once, whether by sale, donation or inheritance." Israel will not return to the 1949 "Auschwitz borders." (Prof. Steven Plaut, 3/17 from
http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/1355/ washington-throws-a-tantrum)

The U.S. allegation that Israel deliberately thumbed its nose at the U.S. contrasts with careful Israel attempts to soften any differences with the U.S. and Obama attempts to exacerbate any differences with Israel. The allegation is absurd.


An earlier Examiner piece pointed out that Ramat Shlomo was not acquired from Jordanian invaders. Now the Winston Mid East Report and Analysis puts it more explicitly: "Please note that, although all the pundits in the Media, the Obama Administration and, especially the Muslims claim this neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo is EAST Jerusalem, it is not! Get a map! Ramat Shlomo is directly North of Jerusalem and has always been in the Jerusalem municipal boundaries." (Winston Mid Est Report and Analysis, 3/17).


Contending that the announcement by an Israeli Cabinet Minister of new housing in Jerusalem raises doubts whether Israel really wants to negotiate peace, some senior U.S. officials are considering whether the U.S. should offer its own plan for the conflict and when (David Sanger, Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 3/18, A10).

PM Netanyahu repeatedly offered to negotiate. Abbas spurned the offers or, encouraged by U.S. demands upon Israel, refused to negotiate unless those demands were met. Who then, is not serious about negotiating?

The question is what to negotiate. There the parties disagree. The Arabs have insatiable demands, based on their interpretation of Islam and their ideology that Israel, itself, rightfully is theirs. The one-sided Israeli concessions that the U.S. demands, while the Arabs retain the doctrine of exclusive Islamic control, would strengthen jihad and make war likelier. Since jihad is warring on the U.S., too, this would subvert U.S. national security.

Perhaps Obama manufactured this crisis not just to get more concessions for the Arabs out of Israel. He put the U.S. into a position where it can offer a plan without being considered intrusive.


E.U. Catherine Ashton with P.A. PM Fayyad (AP/Fadi Arouri)

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton was touring Gaza when Hamas fired a rocket into Israel, killing a Thai hothouse worker on Tuesday. Hamas fired two more rockets the next day.

Ashton had condemned the Israeli progress report on a 1,600-unit housing project in northwestern Jerusalem. She did not object to the timing of Hamas' attack. She just "condemns all types of violence." (Arutz-7, 3/18)

Al-Qaida claimed to have launched the fatal rocket (IMRA, 3/18 http://www.imra.org.il/). Hamas sometimes tries to avoid being blamed for firing rockets by letting other terrorist organizations fire rockets, including Hamas rockets.

Ashton's condemnation is too general to upset Hamas.

If she were even-handed, she would have condemned all sides' building in Jerusalem. Of course, there is no basis for condemning any ethnic group for building in Jerusalem, so long as the people doing or purchasing the building own the plot. Often Arabs do not own it. The land either belongs to someone else or is public land. The public land may be zoned for parks or roads that serve the designated residential areas.


Ontario's legislature passed unanimously a resolution against Apartheid Week, on February 25. Now we have reactions to it.

The resolution's sponsor, Progressive-Conservative MP Peter Shurman, thinks that the term, itself, "Apartheid Week," which is supposed to hold discussions about what Israel does, has a false premise that Israel is guilty. The false premise pre-emptively halts intelligent discussion of the real problems of the Mideast. The premise and the event is an aggressive and nasty approach. He believes that different parties to the Arab-Israel conflict should discuss the real issues with mutual respect.

The main reaction is a tremendous wave of hate mail, mostly to him. He got some support, but mostly was called names, such as Nazi, "Minister of Kikes," and four-letter words (Prof. Steven Plaut, 3/18).

Bigger words are hard for some people to spell. Point is, they hate, they denounce, they do not discuss.

They sound like some of those who comment on my articles. They hate, they denounce, they do not discuss. They answer refutation by repeating their disproved view. They answer specifics with irrelevant generalities. They defame authors whom they do not know.

From such comments, I learn interesting things about myself. I learned that I am a dual citizen, though I can't seem to find the non-U.S. passport. I also am called a non-citizen. I learned that I am a paid agent both of Israel and of Turkey, which opposes Israel, though the payments never come through. I find out I am anti-American, though raised during the deeply patriotic period of WWII. I was told I am anti-Christian and anti-Muslim, though I do not discuss religious doctrine, only politics, sometime conducted in the name of a religion. They accuse me of advocating murder, though they cite no such advocacy and themselves advocate it. All that defamation distracts from the subject. Those critics seem unable to discuss the subject on an adult level and without name-calling. Same for a few supporters, whose ranting I also delete. Hate mail is unfit for new reporting.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Robin Ticker, March 19, 2010.


A fantastic home of Hachnosas Orchim! Many Yeshiva boys and Seminary girls in their year in Israel have to scramble around for a place for Shabbos including our sons and daughters from Brooklyn, NY. They have found a welcoming home at the Machlis's together with Baalei Teshuva and people from all walks of life. It's an experience. Wall to wall. It's amazing how much Chesed they have accomplished with such limited resources. Hashem provides and we will benefit greatly to be a partner with the Machlis's.

Shabbat Shalom!

This comes from Chesed L'Orchim Machlis in Jerusalem (chesed.lorchim@gmail.com).


As you know, Rabbi Mordechai and Henny Machlis have spent their entire married lives fully devoted to the service of others. To whatever extent you know them personally and have seen them at work you know how unparalleled they are as paragons of selfless chesed, love and giving to everyone. Personally, I've never experienced anyone quite like them.

With 14 kids and full time jobs they don't have the ability to fundraise for all of the kindness that they dispense. They host beautiful, lavish Shabbat celebrations in their home each and every week where everyone is invited, made to feel fully at home and shown what a Jewish home in Jerusalem is like. They clothe, feed and house anywhere from a few to hundreds of poor, homeless and otherwise in-distress people on a regular basis — people who have no family except the Machlises and no home except the one at 137-26 Maalot Dafna (the Machlis's). They dispense over 12,000 meals a year, host a kiddush at the Western Wall every Shabbat, hold Torah Study sessions at least once a week in their home, care for orphans, widows, poor brides and the mentally or physically ill, etc, etc, etc.

As a one-stop charity, offered with a full, sincere and loving heart, there's none like them.

You're receiving this email because you're one of the very few people who has contributed to their cause and chosen to have them represent you through your generous choice to help fund them.

Rabbi Machlis just completed his semester of teaching at Lev HaTorah and at Bar Ilan University and has taken this week of pre-Passover vacation to throw himself into the difficult and thankless task of attempting to raise funds so that he can continue his and his wife's holy work.

Thanks to you and only to you the Machlises haven't closed down this past year or lost their home. Years of neglecting to raise funds for their manifold charitable works however have them remaining in the red and continuing to struggle to raise each week's budget from week to week. Please join me in putting an end to their financial instability by becoming partners with them and by letting others know about the opportunity to become partners with the Machlises as well.

There's so much more that the Machlises would do if only they had the resources for it. Right now however, they're struggling to raise the $240,000 yearly budget required simply to sustain the many chesed programs they already engage in on a daily basis.

Please consider joining me in becoming a part of The Jerusalem Machlis Experience through an ongoing modest donation
as either a:

Chai Member
Silver Partner or
Gold Partner

And please take a moment to consider whether a friend or acquaintance would be similarly interested in joining us as well. Feel free to forward or publish this email wherever you believe it may do some good.

Chai Member — Your contribution of $18 a month provides food, clothing and housing for a homeless person for one day each month in the loving and wise care of the Machlis family.
For Paypal, click Here.

Sponsor — Your contribution of $36 a month covers the cost of three sumptuous 5-course Shabbat meals each month to students and visitors interested in catching a glimpse of what Jewish life is like in Jerusalem these days. The good will and appreciation created by this kindness to visitors goes a very long way towards improving the world and Israel's situation within it.
For Paypal, click here.

Silver Partner — Your contribution of $100 a month provides full and complete sponsorship of an entire table for 8 guests each month. Each and every month, one table will be wholly in your honor and solely thanks to you.
For Paypal, click here.

Gold Partner — Your contribution of $100 a week makes you a weekly part of the Machlis Shabbat Experience as each and every week one full table of 8 will be entirely thanks to you. You have an unparalleled part to play in The Machlis Experience, week after week.
For Paypal, click here.

May you and yours be blessed with the most beautiful Passover and wondrously happy, joyous and meaningful lives filled with good deeds and with the knowledge of all of the thousands of good deeds that are done by the Machlis family thanks to your personal support.


Contact Robin Ticker at faigerayzel@gmail.com. She writes: "This email is L'Ilui Nishmat Yisrael ben David Aryeh ob"m (Izzy Kaplan) a great activist and lover of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichrono Baruch."

To Go To Top

Posted by Chuck Brooks, March 18, 2010.

This was written by Ruth Wisse, a professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard, is the author of "Jews and Power" (Schocken, 2007). It appeared yesterday as an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal.


Why are 21 countries with 800 times more land so obsessed with Israel?

When she is surrounded by a swirl of conversation she cannot understand, my two-year-old granddaughter turns to me expectantly: "What they talking about, Bubbe?" Right now, I would have to confess to her that the hubbub over 1,600 new housing units in Jerusalem defies rational explanation.

Of the children of Abraham, the descendants of Ishmael currently occupy at least 800 times more land than descendants of Isaac. The 21 states of the Arab League routinely announce plans of building expansion. Saudi Arabia estimates that 555,000 housing units were built over the past several years. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced during a meeting in Baghdad last year that "Some 10,000 units will be built in each province [of Iraq] with 100 square meters per unit" to accommodate citizens whose housing needs have not been met for a long time. Egypt has established 10 new cities since 1996. They are Tenth of Ramadan, Sixth of October, Al Sadat, Al Shurouq, Al Obour, New Damietta, New Beni Sueif, New Assiut, New Luxor, and New Cairo.

In 2006 the Syrian Prime Minister, Mohammad Naji Atri, announced a new five-year development plan that aims to supply 687,000 housing units. Kuwait expects to have a demand for approximately 100,000 private housing units by 2010. Last year Jordan's King Abdullah launched a National Housing Initiative, which aims to build 120,000 properties for low-income Jordanians.

Arab populations grow. And neighborhoods expand to house them. What's more, Arab countries benefited disproportionately from the exchange of populations between Jews and Arabs that resulted from the Arab wars against Israel. Since 1948 upward of 800,000 Jews abandoned their homes and forfeited their goods in Egypt, Iraq, Morocco and Yemen. In addition to assets valued at hundreds of billions of dollars, the property deeds of Jews from Arab lands is estimated at a total area of 100,000 square miles, which is five times the size of the state of Israel, and more than Israel would include even if it were to stretch over all the disputed territories of the West Bank.

These preposterous disparities are a result of contrasting political cultures. The Arab League was founded at the same time as Israel with the express aim of undoing the Jewish state's existence. Although much has changed over the ensuing decades, opposition to the Jewish state remains the strongest unifying tool of inter-Arab and Arab-Muslim politics. Trying to eliminate the Jews rather than compete with them has never benefited nations.

It is unfortunate that Arabs obsess about building in Israel rather than aiming for the development of their own superabundant lands. But why should America encourage their hegemonic ambitions? In December the White House issued a statement opposing "new construction in East Jerusalem" without delineating where or what East Jerusalem is.

Ramat Shlomo, the neighborhood at the center of the present altercation, is actually in northern Jerusalem, west of the Jewish neighborhoods of Ramot, home to 40,000 Jewish residents. Why does the White House take issue with the construction of housing for Jewish citizens within the boundaries of their own country? The same White House raised no objection when Jordan recently began systematically stripping citizenship from thousands of its Palestinian citizens rather than providing new housing units for them in a land much larger than Israel.

Perhaps Israel has been at fault for not doggedly insisting on unconditional acceptance of its sovereign existence, and for not demanding that Arab rulers adhere to the U.N. Charter's guarantee of "equal rights of ... nations large and small." Preposterous as they would have thought it, perhaps Israelis ought to have called for a freeze on Arab settlements to correspond to unreasonable Arab demands on them.

Any peaceful resolution to the Middle East conflict will begin with a hard look at the map of the region in which 21 countries with 800 times more land are consumed with their Jewish neighbors' natural increase.

Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, March 18, 2010.

The Grand Marching Song of the Anti-Zionist Left
By Steven Plaut

We are progressive, caring, socially advanced, egalitarian and freedom-loving Anti-Zionists. Here we present to you our Grand Marching Song. Set to John Philip Sousa. All together:

We believe in enlightened government and progress.

And that is why we support Arab fascism.

We believe in peace.

And that is why we support all military aggression against Israel.

We believe in democracy.

And that is why we believe that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that must be destroyed.

We believe in freedom.

And that is why we support Syria and Iran, and of course the Hamas.

We believe in the freedom of speech and of the press.

And that is why we support the Palestinian Authority.

We believe in self-determination and self-definition for all.

But not for Jews.

We oppose violence.

And that is why we support Palestinian terror.

We believe in human dignity.

And that is why we applaud when Arabs blow up Jewish women and children.

We believe in human rights. And for this reason we support Arab atrocities.

We believe in fraternity and the brotherhood of nations.

Which is why Israel must be de-Zionized and converted into a clone of Rwanda.

We believe in voting.

Which is why we applaud Libya, Sudan, Iran, and Syria and demand that Israel be destroyed.

We believe in freedom of movement.

Except for Jews.

We favor equality.

As in Syria, Iran and Libya.

We favor minority rights.

But not for Jews, Kurds, Southern Sudanese, Copts or any other politically incorrect groups.

We believe in freedom.

But do not mind that slavery still exists in Sudan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere among Arabs.

We believe in a free press.

And so we support censorship by the PLO and Hamas.

We believe in freedom to practice religion.

But only for Moslems.

We believe in affirmative action preferences for those who suffered from past discrimination.

But not for Jews.

We believe in progress and enlightenment.

And so we support Jihad and pogroms.

We believe in egalitarianism.

And so we support demands for ethnic cleansing of the Middle East to drive out the Jews.

We love children and living things.

And this is why we applaud suicide bombers.

We hate it when people blame the victims.

Which is why all terrorism is the Jews' fault.

We believe in education.

As long as we never have to read any books.

We believe in multiculturalism.

As long as no one ever has to learn respect for the Jews or for the West or for Amerika.

We believe in progress.

And so we celebrate barbarism and savagery.

We believe in progress.

As long as Arab countries never are asked to progress beyond the 12th century.

We believe in democracy.

But not for Arabs.

We believe in prosperity.

And that is why we support Arab feudalism and kleptocracy.

We believe in equal citizenship.

Just as long as Israel never conscripts its Arabs.

We believe in freedom of expression.

Which is why people who do not agree with us must be censored.

We believe the human rights of Arabs must be protected.

But not in Arab countries.

We are upset by illiteracy.

And that is why we practice it.

We believe in women's equality,

But not among Arabs.

We oppose torture,

Except when it is by the Palestinian Authority or similar progressive Arab force.  

by Steven Plaut

We have nothing against Jews as such. We just hate Zionism and Zionists. We think Israel does not have a right to exist. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such. Heavens to Mergatroyd. Marx Forbid. We are humanists. Progressives. Peace lovers.

Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews. Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism and Israeli policies. The two have nothing to do with one another. Venus and Mars. Night and day.

Trust us.

Sure, we think the only country on the earth that must be annihilated is Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

Sure, we think that the only children on earth whose being blown up is okay if it serves a good cause are Jewish children. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

Sure, we think that if Palestinians have legitimate grievances this entitles them to mass murder Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such. Naturally, we think that the only people on earth who should never be allowed to exercise the right of self-defense are the Jews. Jews should only resolve the aggression against them through capitulation, never through self-defense. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We only denounce racist apartheid in the one country in the Middle East that is not a racist apartheid country. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We refuse to acknowledge the Jews as a people, and think they are only a religion. We do not have an answer to how people who do not practice the Jewish religion can still be regarded as Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think that all peoples have the right to self-determination, except Jews, and including even the make-pretend "Palestinian people". But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We hate it when people blame the victims, except of course when people blame the Jews for the jihads and terrorist campaigns against them. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think the only country in the Middle East that is a fascist anti-democratic one is the one that has free elections. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We demand that the only country in the Middle East with free speech, free press or free courts be destroyed. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We oppose military aggression, except when it is directed at Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We really understand suicide bombers who murder bus loads of Jewish children and we insist that their demands be met in full. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think that Jews have any human rights that need to be respected, and especially not the right to ride a bus without being murdered. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

There are Jewish, leftist anti-Zionists and we consider this proof that anti-Zionists could not possibly be anti-Semitic; not even the ones who cheer when Jews are mass murdered. These are the only Jews we think need be acknowledged or respected. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.. We think the only conflict on earth that must be solved through dismembering one of the parties to that conflict is the one involving Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think murder proves how righteous and just the cause of the murderer is, except when it comes to murderers of Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think the Jews are entitled to their own state and must submit to being a minority in a Rwanda-style bi-national state, although no other state on earth, including the 22 Arab countries, should be similarly expected to be deprived of its sovereignty. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think that Israel having a Jewish majority and a star on its flag makes it a racist apartheid state. We do not think any other country having an ethnic-religious majority or having crosses or crescents or Allah Akbar on its flag is racist or needs dismemberment. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We condemn the mistreatment of women in the only country of the Middle East in which they are not mistreated. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We condemn the mistreatment of minorities in the only country in the Middle East in which minorities are not brutally suppressed and mass murdered. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We demand equal citizen rights, which is why the only country in the Middle East in need of extermination is the only one in which such rights exist. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We have no trouble with the fact that there is no freedom of religion in any Arab countries. But we are mad as hell at Israel for violating religious freedom, and never mind that we are never quite sure where or when it does so. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

So how can you possibly say we are anti-Semites? We are simply anti-Zionists. We seek peace and justice, that's all. And surely that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 18, 2010.


Arabs claim Jews plot against mosque (A.P./Bernat Armangu)

After Hamas urged a "day of rage," Arabs in Jerusalem threw Molotov cocktails and rocks, burned tires, and blocked streets in Jerusalem, because the government of Israel announced another step in a multi-step process of building some houses in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem. The U.S. government continuously denounces that step and not the riots. PM Netanyahu remarked that the U.S. government hyperbole over the step gave the Palestinian Authority an excuse not to negotiate. [The U.S. blames Israel for the lack of negotiation.]

Hamas seems to have timed its venting to the rededication of a synagogue in the Old City of Jerusalem, where Jordanian invaders in 1948 had destroyed them all. Hamas contends that the reconstruction of the synagogue is part of a plot to destroy al-Aksa mosque on the Temple Mount.

[Arab demagogues and terrorists have resurrected this accusation periodically since about 1920. Apparently the Israelis are slow to put this plot into action. Not only does the mosque still stand, but Muslims have additional excavations and buildings at the Mount, which might have collapsed from the careless work and overload, if not for Israeli engineers, you know, the ones plotting to bring down the mosque and a war with the billion plus Muslims.]

While Arab leaders urge riot and Intifada instead of negotiation, they also accuse Israel of bringing the region to the brink of war (Joshua Mitnick, Jay Solomon, Wall St. J., 3/17, A10). That would be like bank robber Willie Sutton blaming the banks for his robberies, because they put money into them. He had a choice not to commit crimes.

In the riots, about 10 people were hurt and 60 arrested. Ethan Bronner explains that the Palestinian Arabs "want East Jerusalem for the future capital." (New York Times, 4/17).

They never had it, but now they want it. Because they want it, municipal life should come to a halt and Arab claims should be granted, without an end to terrorism, without peace negotiations, and without considering Jewish claims, or else they will injure and even kill people rather than negotiate? Is that a legitimate argument and a deserving people?


Israeli officials explain that their regime was elected on the promise of continuing to build all over Jerusalem, and say that is its right.

Sec. of State Clinton assures Israel that the U.S. remains dedicated to its security, but demands several new concessions from Israel (NY Times, 3/17).

Clinton piggybacks onto supposed U.S. humiliation by Israel her demands that would diminish that security and national development, or else Israel risks losing its relationship with the U.S. that she had just declared "unshakable."


David Axelrod

New York Times commentator Maureen Dowd says that Obama finally lost his temper, because PM Netanyahu was "supremely aggravating." [This is the hyperbole of an attack-dog talk show host.]

She reminds us that Obama "did unfortunately apologize" to Gadhafi "who got mad" at a correct State Dept. observation about his nonsense. For a "defiant Israel," however, Obama will not compromise. His popularity in Israel cannot get lower, she supposes, for "smacking our ally for its egregious treatment of the vice president. Joe Biden, the great champion of Israel was humiliated when Israel used the occasion of his visit to defy America and announce a plan for 1,600 more homes in the disputed East Jerusalem area." She writes that Israeli conservatives expected Obama to back down again.

[When Israel hews to its word and acts in its own interest rather than anti-Zionist orders from the State Dept., that is defiant and not to be tolerated? Sounds like the kind of U.S. arrogance that Democrats did not like when they thought Pres. Bush did it to other countries. As for Gadhafi, he shot down dozens of Americans and threatens war over petty matters, but he gets an apology?]

["Egregious treatment," "humiliated" — again, exaggeration. She always was hostile to Israel. Apparently she is using this opportunity to pile onto Israel.]

[She calls Biden a "great champion of Israel." He is an even greater champion of Iran, which seeks to destroy Israel. But mainly she is pretending that Netanyahu intended to embarrass the U.S.. He didn't know the announcement would be made. It was just a molehill. Israeli government cannot stand still when the ever-demanding and ever-present U.S. officials visit in order to dress down Israeli officials. Obama waited a year before introducing economic reform which, like his medical plan, imposes crippling government controls and costs without solving problems.]

Besides, she adds, Netanyahu "obnoxiously labeled Obama's two chief aides, Emanuel and Axelrod, "self-hating Jews." [Sounds appropriate, rather than obnoxious for such radicals, though "anti-Zionist" would be more accurate.]

"The President and his inner circle are appalled at Israel's self-absorption and its failure to notice that America is not only protecting Israel from Iran, fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also dealing with a miasma of horrible problems at home. And Israel insults the Obama administration over a domestic zoning issue that has nothing to do with its security? 'That's not how you treat your best friend,' said one Obama official.'"

[The U.S. does nothing to protect Israel from Iran, procrastinates while Iran develops nuclear weapons, and protects Iran from Israel. The present Administration is not Israel's "friend;" the State Dept. always is Israel's enemy. The American people and Congress are Israel's friends."]

[Israel's security depends on having a united capital, as contrasted with the period of 1948-67, when Arabs in eastern Jerusalem fired at Jews in the rest of Jerusalem. Israel's security depends on independent sovereignty, not taking orders from a State Dept. that favors Israel's Arab enemies.]

During his campaign, Obama had said that Israelis "mindlessly let settlement gluttony scuttle any chance of peace." And the Saudi Foreign Minister recently suggested that Israel's religious groups were "killing every option that comes out that has peace as an objective."

[There you have it. Obama was opposed to Israeli policy from the beginning. What "gluttony?" Israel comprises less than 1% of the Mideast outside of Iran, and the Arabs have 99%, including 79% of the area included in the Palestine Mandate intended to produce a Jewish state. The Arabs there, who steal public and private land, could be accused of "settlement gluttony."]

[The Saudi "peace initiative" demanded concessions from Israel that would make it simple for the Arabs to destroy Israel. The initiative was for jihad, not for peace. Let us not mistake negotiations and pacts for peace.]

The "fundamentalist" rabbis of the Shas Party "foment a crisis between Israel and its benefactor over" housing earmarks. [The Shas Cabinet Minister announced a scheduled step. The crisis was engineered by the Obama administration, which seized on the slightly tactless announcement and piled on despite apology, using it as a lever to force its will upon internal Israeli affairs.]

Jeffrey Goldberg's Atlantic blog supposes "that Obama's ulterior motive is to drive out the ultra-conservatives and force a rupture in the governing coalition that will make it necessary for Netanyahu to take Tzipi Livni's Kadima Party into his government, thus creating a "stable, centrist coalition' that could work for peace."

[There you have it, again — Obama had an ulterior motive of overthrowing the Netanyahu regime, as the U.S. had done to him before. Now we can see that all this insulting of Israel and being pretended to be insulted by Israel and the formation of J Street to split U.S. Jewry are a cover for trying to oust Netanyahu. It is a shameful episode in U.S. diplomacy.]

...in Israel, "many citizens and columnists are embarrassed" by Netanyahu's behavior." His regime is "petulant." (3/17, A27.)

Most Israelis back their Prime Minister against this foreign interference. Obama's explanations and suggestions are put moderately, as is his usual way in public. Sounds to me as if Maureen Dowd and the Obama clique, who lose no opportunity to rub this issue raw with their negative adjectives, are the "petulant" ones.

Why is there no U.S. indignation and rift with the Palestinian Arabs, who have been rioting all during the U.S. imbroglio with Israel? Does the U.S. view riots as helpful to peace?


Under U.S. law, the U.S. is supposed to move its Embassy within Israel to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. Our Presidents refuse to do so. They claim that the law allows them to waive the requirement every six months, on grounds of national interests.

The past two Presidents included in their note exercising the waiver a statement that they would move the Embassy at the first opportunity. President Obama omitted that statement. It shows his stronger objection.

Sen. Brownback submitted S27737, a bill more forceful on moving the Embassy. Sen. Brownback is not running for re-election to the Senate. He is practicing self-imposed term limits (from a former lobbyist).

The prior Presidents may have noted that they would move the Embassy at the first opportunity, but they both had two terms and never found it opportune. Was their dissembling preferable to Obama's frankness?


Writing in the New York Daily News, Aaron Miller, former adviser on the Mideast, thinks the current rift was caused by "Israeli ineptness and American overkill." [He is right, He wants to heal the rift so as to get negotiations going so as to transfer territory from Israel to the Arabs. That was his stance when he was one of what were called "Baker's Jews," Jewish advisers against Israel.]

He assumes that it is the U.S. task to work out peace. [The Arabs want the U.S. to get Israel to meet Arab demands, which would render Israel vulnerable to conquest. The State Dept. is amenable to this Arab desire. One day the Arab leaders are indoctrinating their people in hating Jews, the next day they sign an agreement and the people will let them tolerate a non-believer regime in an Israel reduced in size and with weak borders so that it is easy to conquer?]

Mr. Miller wonders whether the Obama administration wants to change Israel's regime or just is behavior (3/17, p.37).

This is that American hubris that it no longer can sustain with the rise of strong new powers such as India, Brazil, and S. Korea. The U.S. needs to figure out what it needs to do, what it can do, end its obsession with the Arab-Israel conflict, and recognize that the same jihad that threatens Israel threatens the U.S.. The three new challenges to America are: (1) Militant Islam; (2) Foreign economic competition; and (3) Stultification of education and government stifling of the economy.

Again, the U.S. is concentrating on negotiating an agreement and calling it peace. Rabin and Peres did that with Arafat, and got war. The Arabs do not want peace with Israel, they want to conquer and take over Israel. It therefore makes no sense to make concessions to the Arabs just to negotiate, when there is no point to negotiations. The Arabs need to change their culture, so that they stop hating, trying to conquer and dominate, violence, and using terrorist means as well as deception.

REVELATION ABOUT SEN. CLINTON The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) had signed a peace agreement with Israel that included a commitment to end official bigotry and incitement to violence against Israel. It violated that agreement. The New York Times, however, did not carry stories on P.A. school incitement. [Not keeping its readers "fully informed.]

A U.S. lobbyist brought this to the attention of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Realizing that this issue would resonate within her constituency, she soon issued a statement on P.A. school incitement. It was published in the New York Daily News (from the lobbyist).

Sen. Brownback submitted S2737, a bill on moving the Embassy that tightens the language and removes the presidential waiver. Sen. Brownback is not running for re-election to the Senate. He is practicing self-imposed term limits (from a former lobbyist).

The prior Presidents may have noted that they would move the Embassy at the first opportunity, but they both had two terms and never found it opportune. Was their dissembling preferable to Obama's frankness?


PM Netanyahu tried to get along with the U.S., despite its constant demands upon it in behalf of Israel's Arab enemies. His attempt would have made sense if Obama were a typical President who asserts U.S. national interests, helps U.S. friends, and maintains its alliances. Instead, Obama is a "post-American" President, who wants the U.S. to be nobody's champion. [Then why the U.S. obsession to get Israeli concessions for the Arabs?] This change renders Israeli policy toward the U.S. obsolete.

Israel put up with more than a year of the new U.S. Administration's floundering on negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and on Iranian nuclear arms development. In attempting to avoid open disputes with the U.S., Netanyahu gained no credit from the U.S.. [Appeasement never does.]

Israel also went along with the doomed U.S. working on sanctions against Iran. Meanwhile, Iran is acquiring better defenses against an Israeli raid. Netanyahu had hoped that his support and patience would be recognized when it has no option but to raid Iran.

Obama's mistake is in letting Iran become an existential threat to the other countries in the region that are friendly with the U.S. and to world peace and security.

Netanyahu's mistaken assumption is that Obama will not let Iran get nuclear weapons. Actually, the U.S. thinks it can contain Iran and will not raid it. Neither does it want any other country to raid Iran. If Israel did, Obama probably would demand sanctions against Israel, making it harder to defend itself.

Conclusion: Israel gains nothing by waiting (Wall St. J., 3/17, A.21).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, March 18, 2010.

This was written by Cal Thomas.


"Enemy: "a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent." — Dictionary.com

Despite Vice President Joe Biden's recent pledge of unswerving fidelity to Israel during his recent visit there, the rhetoric and pressure directed by the Obama administration against the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East more accurately resembles the behavior of an enemy. Increasingly under this administration — but also present in Republican administrations — America's policy toward Israel is full of "harmful designs" and "antagonistic activities." The intentions may not be deliberate, but the outcome would lead to the same injurious end.

The latest pretext for putting more pressure on Israel to do more in the "pursuit of peace" comes from a decision by Israel's Interior Ministry to construct 1,600 new housing units in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, which is located in "disputed territory." To the Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim neighbors, most especially Iran and Syria, all of Israel is "disputed territory." It is difficult to understand why the U.S. State Department thinks not building a few houses is going to dissuade Israel's enemies from wanting less than they want now.

The failure of this formula has been evident for decades, but U.S. policy continues to employ it, always with the same results. Whether Israel's concessions have been unilateral — most recently with its abandonment of the Gaza Strip, which predictably led to terrorist attacks from that territory — or negotiated deals which the Palestinians have never lived up to, Israel always ends up getting its pocket picked. Then, the United States, the U.N., Europe and Russia demand that it put more valuables in its pocket so the thieves can continue their thievery.

A Washington Post headline illustrates the deteriorating relationship between the two nations, "U.S. Pushes Netanyahu to Accept 3 Demands." There is no similar demand that the Palestinians and especially Hamas, which has said it will agree to nothing less than the eradication of Israel, should accept anything, not even the minimal acceptance of Israel's right to exist. Meanwhile, Hamas has called on Palestinians to launch a third "intifada."

After apologizing to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the "offense" of the housing announcement during Biden's visit, Netanyahu reminded the Israeli parliament that Israel has been building in east Jerusalem for four decades. He said, "The building of those Jewish neighborhoods in no way hurt the Arabs of East Jerusalem and did not come at their expense."

That doesn't matter when the wrong formula is employed. In this twisted thinking, whatever Israel does is unjustified so long as the Palestinian-Arab-Muslim side is unhappy. What part of annihilation does the State Department not understand? What State is blind to is that the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict," as it is erroneously labeled, is part of a worldwide religious war against all things Jewish, Christian, secular, modern and Western.

Making demands of only one side before serious negotiations begin, especially on matters of Jerusalem, so-called "refugees" and borders, effectively pressures Israel into making concessions on all three, which would severely damage its prospects for continued existence.

How about first making these demands of the Palestinian-Arab-Muslim side: (1) A pledge of no more war with Israel, or terrorism; 2) a declaration by a powerful Islamic cleric that their God no longer requires them to kill people who don't believe as they do; and 3) no more teaching in Palestinian textbooks and in their media that Jews created AIDS and descend from monkeys and pigs?

After those three demands are met, the State Department can start making demands of Israel. Not before. Anything less puts America on the wrong side, along with Israel's (and America's) enemies. Or hasn't State noticed that we share the same enemies?

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Ben Gadalyahu, March 18, 2010.

Petraeus and Pro-Arab Agenda

Incorrect reports in Israel's largest newspaper and the well known Foreign Policy publication in the United States this week illustrate how the Arab world manipulates the United States to gain concessions and place the world's ills on Israel's shoulders. This time their target was also American public opinion.

Foreign Policy's correspondent Mark Perry, a former advisor to Yasser Arafat, added his own spin to statements by U.S.CENTOM Commander General David Petraeus', in an article called: The Petraeus Briefing; Biden's Embarrassment is not the Whole Story, so that the General's statements seemed to blame Israel for casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the general never said that.

Perry began by quoting Israel's decidedly leftist Yediot Acharonot, which wrote that U.S. Vice President Joe Biden "reportedly" told Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu last week, "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan." But White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said that Vice President Biden never told or hinted to Israeli leaders that Jewish development in Judea and Samaria endangers the lives of U.S. soldiers.

Perry, who has a long record of anti-Israeli bias and has written a book promoting "engagement " with terrorists," wrote that General Petraeus' briefed Chief of Staff General Mullen and sent a report to the White House in which he claimed that "there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises [and] that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region" and putting U.S. soldiers in danger.

Petraeus did tell the Senate Armed Services Committee that "clearly the tensions in these [Israeli-Arab] issues have an enormous effect on the strategic context in which we operate in Central Command area of responsibility" but he made no mention or hint that Israel's activities could endanger American soldiers.

Perry wrote that Petraeus' briefing "hit the White House like a bombshell." The report not only never reached the White House, it also was equally disbelieved by others, including Israel National News.com (INN) and Commentary's Max Boot.

INN noted that it is unlikely that General Petraeus connected Israeli actions to U.S casualties as that makes no sense. This is a war in which Islamist terrorists fueled by virulent hatred of the U.S., its democracy and civilization are killing American soldiers. Israel is not the issue. Fear of these terrorists taking over their governments is what made the Arab despots in CENTCOM's constituency join forces with it, but they don't admit that and instead exploit the fact that the U.S. wants a broad alliance to pressure America on Israel. Their unspoken fear that the U.S. won't attack Iran in time is what is making them lose faith in its promises.

Perry's report was "incorrect," wrote Boot, who quoted a military officer familiar with the briefing in question and with Petraeus' thinking.

"All that happened." the officer told Boot, "is that there was a staff-officer briefing ... on the situation in the West Bank, because that situation is a concern that CENTCOM hears in the Arab world all the time. Nothing more than that."

Perry also wrote that Petraeus asked the White House to include Judea, Samaria and Gaza as part of his command because, in Perry's words, "with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military (has) to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region's most troublesome conflict". The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit think-tank focusing on issues of United States and Israeli national security, whom INN contacted, called that request "perfectly reasonable."

"[However], to blame Israel for Arab anxieties over the American withdrawal from the fight against the nuclear weaponization of Iran is a lie promulgated by people in the administration who have a fundamental agenda that includes breaking the longstanding U.S.-Israel relationship and/or don't want to acknowledge their impotence against Iran."

Perry's report was enough to set off scares across the web as Americans read that Israel is the source of America's military casualties.

Those alleged statements were a classic follow-up to the Arab world's efforts for the last 60 years to place the blame on Israel for all the world's ills, most recently for the 9/11 attacks and the Iranian nuclear threat.

Judging by the stunned reaction of Americans on the web, Perry's and Yediot's reports were successfully damaging — that is, until it became clear that the reports were not accurate. Regarding his alleged report to the White House, Gen. Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday, "I have discussed, and you know, asking for the Palestinian territories or something like that to be added ... [but] I have never made that a formal recommendation for the Unified Command Plan, and that was not in what I submitted this year. Nor have I sent a memo to the White House on any of this."

Perry's report of Petraeus' alleged remarks to Chief of Staff Mullen is "simply wrong, according to a senior Middle East advisor quoted by Shoshana Bryen, senior director of JINSA. She told Israel National News, "We spoke with two American military officers who have spoken more than once with both Petraeus and Mullen and they both said Petraeus has given numerous lectures and papers — and Israel is never mentioned. The primary concern of both Mullen and Petraeus is Pakistan and the shaky civilian leadership there... I would have been shocked to think that with two wars ongoing, they would have time to worry about a sliver of terrorist supporting territory."

Perry claimed that the fact that American military's did not deny his story is proof that it is correct, but Bryen explained, "There won't be any American military people who will talk about this for the record. Since it appears that the article was incorrect no one will want to characterize either Petraeus or Mullen or their thoughts."

"In our experience, there are three half-truths and an enormous, vicious lie in the post by Perry. What the Arab countries of CENTCOM often call 'the Israel problem' is a foil for their unwillingness to risk their internal stability by being seen as an overt U.S. ally or by confronting Iran. True also is the notion that, according to the Arab states, 'America (is) not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region (is) eroding.' The 'half' in the truths is what they leave out: Israel is not the object of their concern [about military posture and weakness]; Iran is."

Tzvi Ben Gadalyahu is a writer for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, March 17, 2010.

Hatachana Falls in the Tanur Canyon near Metulla

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


Waterfalls are surely one of nature's superstars. The relentless power, the roar and the cool mist perform a ceaseless sensual symphony. One never tires of watching. The most beautiful falls exist in extreme environments and finding a suitable shooting location often poses great danger to the photographer. Cliff edges, slippery rocks and water spray all imperil the photographer and his equipment while hunting for photos alongside a plummeting river.

This week's photo was taken at the base of Tachana Falls, part of the Ayun Stream which runs near Israel's northernmost border in Metulla. Compared with this shot, taken moments later on the same day last spring, this interpretation of the 20-meter falls offers a more imaginative perspective on the setting. For one, we don't see in silhouettes. Only the camera does. Secondly, the rushing water has a silky look to it, created by a slow shutter speed. Just as the constant flow of water carves a more dramatic setting for the river, the photographer can push the limits of his or her vision to create more impressive images of the natural world.

Technical Data: Nikon D300, 12-24 zoom at 24 mm, f20 at 1/15sec.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald Steinberg, March 17, 2010.

The intense debate on the activities of government-funded groups like Rights & Democracy is an important and healthy development.

For many years, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that use the language of human rights and other universal moral causes have been exempt from independent examination. Their activities and publications were usually accepted at face value, under the assumption that the officials involved are virtuous and unbiased. But, like other powerful political actors, NGOs need independent evaluation and constructive criticism to prevent abuse.

From this perspective, Sima Samar's article ("Why I Resigned from Rights & Democracy," March 8), which rejects the legitimacy of this debate, is very troubling. Recent events have revealed how some of the most influential human rights and humanitarian NGOs have become platforms for radical ideological advocacy that is inconsistent with the moral principles they claim to espouse. Unfortunately, Samar has joined other ideologues in attacking independent research and detailed analysis, including the work done by my organization — NGO Monitor — without bothering to examine the facts.

Examples of biased NGOs are not limited to Canadian groups involved with, and providing funds to, pro-Palestinian organisations. Recently, Amnesty International was found to have allied itself with Moazzam Begg, a well known jihadist and Taliban supporter. Gita Saghal, who was in charge of Amnesty's gender division, made her moral objections public but, instead of an independent evaluation, Amnesty suspended Saghal and sought to silence the criticism.

Similar problems have been exposed by NGO Monitor's systematic research into the activities of Human Rights Watch. The bias in HRW's Middle East and North Africa division is reflected in the consistently greater emphasis given to Israel compared to Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, and other chronic rights abusers. (Holding a fundraising dinner in Saudi Arabia to pay for more attacks against Israel was particularly absurd.)

HRW also mounted an intense campaign on behalf of Judge Richard Goldstone's report on the Gaza war, which repeats many of HRW's allegations targeting Israel. Many of these allegations came from "senior military analyst" Marc Garlasco, an obsessive collector of Nazi memorabilia. When this behaviour was exposed in September, HRW announced it was suspending Garlasco "pending an investigation."

But HRW has failed to provide any information regarding the investigation, if any, on the credibility of the "war crimes" claims in Garlasco's reports. And in response to all of this, HRW founder Robert Bernstein has denounced his own organization for its distorted agenda, including efforts "to turn Israel into a pariah state."

Canadian NGOs, including Rights & Democracy, are not immune from the widespread ideological distortion of human rights. In her op-ed, Samar excluded details regarding the two Palestinian organizations, Al Mezan and Al Haq, which received grants during her tenure. Al Haq was an active participant in the notorious NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban conference that adopted the strategy of using human rights and boycotts for political warfare against Israel. Director Shawan Jabarin was described by the Israeli Supreme Court as a "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, a human rights defender by day and a terrorist by night." Jabarin's association with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine has also led the government of Jordan to bar his entry. (HRW, which, as noted, has its own problems with credibility and bias, is one of Jabarin's vocal defenders.)

Similarly, Gaza-based Al Mezan's core political agenda is reflected in its clearly one-sided reports, which consistently erase the context of Palestinian terror while delegitimizing Israeli self-defense. During the Gaza conflict, Al Mezan made numerous false allegations designed for propaganda purposes, such as "Israeli massacres," "slaughtering civilians," "scandalous war crimes," and "despicable disregard to civilian life." But the extensive Hamas use of human shields and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, each one of which was a war crime, was not condemned.

Given this clear bias, there is no justification for the expenditure of taxpayer funds to support Al Haq, Al Mezan and similar groups. And the problem is not limited to Palestinian groups — NGOs exhibit biases regarding the conflicts in Sri Lanka, Colombia, and Central Africa.

In many cases, NGOs tend to reinforce the moral failures of the United Nations Human Rights Council, whose meetings are often chaired by Libya, Iran, and other human rights "stalwarts." Such diversion and exploitation of the principles of universal human rights has done immeasurable damage.

Canada has the opportunity to set an important example in restoring the universal foundations of human rights and international justice. This will require the ability to reject the radical ideologies that have targeted democracies rather than serial human rights abusers. By restoring the moral agenda, and ending secretive practices and political biases in government-funded organisations like Rights & Democracy, Canada is taking an important step in the right direction.

Gerald Steinberg, a professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, is president of NGO Monitor.

This appeared March 14, 2010 in the Ottawa Citizen

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 17, 2010.


Where does Israel stand diplomatically, with the European Union?

I was told by someone in touch with Israeli officials that the government of Sweden warned Israel not to split the EU over Jerusalem issues.

Background: You may recall an earlier article explaining that Sweden proposed recognizing eastern Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian Arab state, regardless of negotiations and non-compliance with previous peace agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority. Israeli diplomats discussed the matter with European counterparts, and found a number of them sympathetic with Israel's position. In the end, the EU rejected Sweden's proposal, in favor of negotiations. Of course, the EU hopes for the same result from negotiations.

Sweden's warning sounds to me as both arrogant and desperate. It is telling Israel to let hostile elements within the EU promote interference in internal Israel affairs, but if Israel relates its side of the story, that is interfering in EU affairs.


My prior article on the diplomatic crisis between the U.S. and Israel called it "manufactured."

www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict- Examiner~ y2010m3d16-Obama-administration-manufactures- a-crisis-with-Israel It pointed out that the Obama administration notoriously betrays U.S. allies and indulges U.S. enemies. Today's New York Times implicitly confirms my analysis.

The Times report makes clear that the U.S. unilaterally and deliberately exacerbates the dispute. Sen. Joe Lieberman, the report states, finds the dispute a form of disunity that enemies of the U.S. and Israel can exploit. The report admits that the Obama regime uses the report [that it is jacking up], to extract more concessions from Israel. Therefore, Obama's motive is not national honor as pretended, but cowing a declared ally into self-destructive concessions to our mutual enemies, the jihadists.

Israel does appease the U.S.. However, since Obama and the State Dept. want Israel to agree to what amounts to national suicide, Israel cannot fully please the U.S. government. Anything Israel does in behalf of self-defense and national security, national patrimony, or normal municipal government, Obama's Israel-bashing wolf pack howls at. This includes the announcement of another step in a long-range neighborhood housing plan in Jerusalem.

Israel's timing was not tactful, but neither did it breach any official agreement with the U.S.. Therefore, the Obama administration probably is 99% in the wrong, here. Considering that the U.S. is siding with jihadists who are enemies both of the U.S. and Israel, Obama policies harm the U.S..

A reader claims that U.S. subsidy of Israel confers a right to dictate to Israel. Really? Does the U.S. dictate to all countries it aids? Does the U.S. disregard the democratic and sovereign rights of all those countries, or only of Israel? Is the aid for mutual benefit or a purchase of souls? The U.S. has a great Constitution and a good people, but its government can do shameful things.

Incidentally, U.S. aid to Israel is matched by U.S. aid to Arab governments, most of which are anti-American as well as anti-Israel. Israel matches the amount of the aid with very high interest on a U.S. loan, the same type of loan that the U.S. canceled for Egypt but did not for Israel. The military portion of U.S. aid restricts Israel to spend most of it in the U.S., to subsidize the U.S. military industry, and often forbids Israel from inserting its own improvements. Some U.S. weapons are inferior to Israel's. Although U.S. cluster bombs cause more civilian casualties than Israel's, the U.S. media criticized Israel for using U.S. ones.

Israel has improved U.S. weapons. It has given the U.S. vital intelligence about the USSR, while the U.S. secretly withheld promised intelligence about Arab armies. Israel defeated the Arabs' Soviet weaponry, encouraging more U.S. arms sales, and kept the USSR from penetrating the Mideast. U.S. aid to Israel has been profitable. Most other foreign aid now is wasted or embezzled.

In a parallel drama, the U.S. contretemps with China, each side accuses the other of protectionism that violates their free-trade treaty. Both appear right. Their dispute jeopardizes the U.S. economy. Fortunately, the Obama regime is not trying to inflame a feigned anger, as is doing with Israel. But with China, the U.S. has a real grievance, not a contrived one.

New York Times journalists Mark Landler and Ethan Bronner inject further misunderstanding with their explanation, "The administration also wants Mr. Netanyahu to commit to substantive negotiations with the Palestinians (sic) after more than a year in which the peace process has been moribund." Not fair. Netanyahu has offered to negotiate at any time, whereas the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has refused to negotiate at any time, without pre-conditions that would include most of its demands. Why the U.S. onus on Israel?

The journalists explain that Obama had "a plan to rekindle the peace process by coupling a demand for a full freeze in Israeli settlement construction with reciprocal confidence-building gestures by Arab countries. Neither happened."

Obama's demand and the Times explanation are unfair. Arab aggressors repeatedly tried to destroy Israel, as part of their support for global jihad. What concessions does Israel owe them? Why U.S. interference in Israeli affairs? Nevertheless, Israel did make a major concession; the Arabs made none. Indeed, the P.A. continues to glorify terrorism against Israel. The U.S. does not object. Neither does the U.S. object to Saudi Arabia financing of Radical Islamic schools and mosques everywhere, indoctrinating in terrorism that kills thousands of Americans. Obama's indignation against Israel is hypocritical and misplaced (3/18, A1).

This manufactured crisis whipsaws Israel: (1) Obama pushes the saw against Israel by publicly demanding concessions to Arabs. (2) Abbas pulls the saw back by refusing to negotiate unless Israel makes those concessions. (3) As if Obama had not induced Abbas' intransigence, Obama pushes the saw again against Israel, by blaming Israel for lack of negotiations.

Sure enough, today's Wall St. Journal reports (Joshua Mitnick, Jay Solomon, 3/16, A17), now that the U.S. demands that Israel rescind its Jerusalem housing step announcement, Abbas refuses to negotiate unless Israel does. The U.S. should be asking whether Abbas is serious about negotiations and peace (the two are not the same).

The U.S. threatens relations with Israel, but reaffirms their sharing of national interests. Can't have it both ways! Both countries should reconsider relations.

Israel should strive for self-sufficiency and eschew appeasement. The U.S. needs to emancipate its foreign relations from failed ideologies, appeasement of enemies, profligacy for lobbyists, and the suborning of U.S. diplomats by Saudi Arabia. A Saudi prince boasted that dangling the prospect of lavish consultancies for U.S. diplomats upon retirement put most of them in his pocket. There is a legitimate cause for American indignation and reform.


Pres. da Silva at Yad VaShem (AP/David Silverman)

Israel's PM Netanyahu welcomed the visiting President of Brazil on Monday by admiring Brazil and explaining Israel's attempt to bring peace. He explained that no Israeli Prime Minister ever has restricted Jewish construction in Jerusalem. He added that such construction did no harm to Arabs. Then he referred to half a dozen such neighborhoods as "suburbs" of Jerusalem (IMRA, 3/16).

The welcome seems part of Israel's response to the Obama campaign against Israel. Some observers think that Obama is trying to cause the Israeli public to overthrow Netanyahu. Instead, it has given him exceptional Knesset support and encouraged him to stand firm.

The continued U.S. denunciation of Israel has upset many Americans in Congress, mostly Republicans, but in a non-partisan manner. For example, from Sen. Sam Brownback's office, "It is hard to see how spending a weekend condemning Israel for a zoning decision in its capital city amounts to a positive step toward peace." (Arutz-7, 3/12)

A previous U.S. President did overthrow Netanyahu before, in conjunction with Israel's left wing. Many Americans do not realize how much the U.S. interferes in other countries' internal affairs against their democratic rule. Incidentally, many also do not realize how much the U.S. also helps liberate other countries, as the Bush administration did, particularly for Ukraine.

Some of the neighborhoods Netanyahu cited, such as French Hill, are not suburbs. They are contiguous neighborhoods annexed to Jerusalem. They are as much a part of Jerusalem as my native Brooklyn, which later joined with Manhattan, is part of New York City. A suburb is not part of the inner city. Netanyahu's use of the term suburb would apply to some of the Jewish communities outside of, but more or less adjacent to, Jerusalem's municipal boundaries. His misuse of the term, "suburb," for what is part of the "urb," undermines his case by putting those neighborhoods' disposition into question.


Hurva Synagogue (AP/Bernat Armangue)

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights made a lengthy statement citing the Geneva Conventions, the gist of which is that Israeli rebuilding of the Hurva synagogue is a "war crime" (Arutz-7, 3/12)

The synagogue was destroyed by Jordan's Arab Legion, as part of its ethnic cleansing in its1948 aggression against Israel. Who denounced that ethnic cleansing and religious bigotry as a war crime? Just denounce its rebuilding?

Geneva Conventions and international law are what the Arabs cite against Israel, often falsely, in their own behalf, and also violate in their own behalf. Besides that example, think of all the Arab terrorism, Hamas use of human shields, Arab armies' murder of Israeli prisoners of war, Saddam's violations of binding UN Security Council resolutions, and invasions of other countries.

The extravagant claim by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights is typical of it and of the Palestinian Authority. Somehow, its falsity does not register with Westerners, who keep taking Palestinian Arab accusations seriously. Skepticism would be more prudent..

GUANTANAMO LAWYERS VERSUS U.S. Do Guantanamo defense lawyers perform a legal service or a subversive activity? This question arose when Attorney-General Eric Holder was revealed to have hired former defense lawyers for Guantanamo prisoners.

Objections first were presented as generalities. Holder could counter them with generalities. He said that these attorneys merely fulfilled the constitutional rights of prisoners to counsel, then; no harm in his hiring them, now.

The issue was framed incorrectly then; it has been properly joined now. Debra Burlingame, an attorney and co-founder of Keep America Safe, and Thomas Joscelyn, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies assert specific abuses of constitutional privileges by defense counsel.

Defense counsel gave clients propaganda that accused the U.S. of national, religious, and racial prejudice, war, and torture against Arabs. The propaganda was published by Amnesty International. It takes a political and exaggerated stand not just against alleged U.S. means but against U.S. self-defense.

By a protective court order, attorneys are not allowed to give inflammatory matter to clients. Also forbidden is information about military operations, intelligence, arrests, political news, and current events. The Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison had distributed the brochure to all nine of its Guantanamo clients by uncensored mail reserved for lawyer-client communication. That is an abuse. Confidential mail was established to enable lawyers and clients to prepare a defense privately. To protect wartime security at the prison, the commandant banned that law firm from it.

The firm, employing far more lawyers than the government had available, sued. It claimed that the brochure was germane to clients' defense. But it was inciting captured enemy detainees. It gave the captured enemies moral support against the U.S.. General Hood explained that "It is not a factual report. Instead it is filled with second- and third-hand accounts, photos of protests that were staged, inflammatory stories from Iraq, and provocative story captions."

Noting that many of the prisoners had trained from a manual that encourages them to claim torture and abuse, the commandant concluded that these alleged examples of abuse could help prisoners concoct phony but persuasive claims. [Then the lawyers would use the false claims as testimony?] They also might attack U.S. personnel.

Prisoners already had an unwarranted hunger strike, to gain sympathy. Human rights groups then fabricated stories of forced feedings for torture. The Paul, Weiss attorney advised prisoners that staff had no right to force-feed them, whereupon they fought off the tubes, risking their lives [which might incur more notoriety for the prison].

Paul, Weiss documented similar violations of the protective court order by other law firms, claiming discrimination against it. Obviously, the law firm was confident of indication, rather than expecting that it would get the other firms barred from the premises. It anticipated that if some lawyers were barred, others would take their places and tie up or wear down the government. The media would support them. So might the courts. [This shows a need for military tribunals!]

There were other violations. One lawyer sent his client a copy of an anti-American speech that likened military physicians to the Nazi doctor at Auschwitz. Another lawyer was caught sketching the prison camp layout, including guard towers! Lawyers posted Guantanamo security badges on the Internet! A lawyer gave his client a list of all the prisoners. Lawyers transmitted media questions to prisoners and their answers back to the media. Lawyers gave prisoners Internet reports while their comrades in Iraq were bombing U.S. troops. [This is not making legal defense but enemy propaganda and boosting prisoner morale.]

Lawyers said they had to do these things to establish trust with their clients, many of whom otherwise did not want legal representation. [That's an excuse?]

The Dept. of Defense gave in. Abuses continued. Lawyers gave prisoners photos of under-cover CIA officers, to find out whether they had interrogated them. [Considering that some prisoners got released, the photos may blow the U.S. officers' cover and could get them killed.]

Back to Attorney-General Holder. One of the Guantanamo lawyers he hired from Human Rights Watch wanted to close the prison and military tribunals and free those whom civilian courts cannot try, calling that a worthwhile risk. Another Justice Dept. official considers a 20% recidivism rate among prisoners acceptable. [If it's not his child getting killed by recidivists?]

The authors suggest it reasonable to inquire who else Holder is hiring and do they represent the legal profession's noblest tradition. They end with examples of released prisoners committing more murder. (Wall St. J., 3/15, A3. I omitted some lesser points I thought more questionable).

Notice the anti-Americanism and shoddy research by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International! Earlier I reported this in the context of their accusations against Israel and contribution to the UN report on Gaza.

Many of the Guantanamo lawyers, like certain Mafia lawyers, have crossed the line from just challenging the government to collect sufficient evidence and properly, accord prisoners their rights, not have a tainted jury or biased judge, to the other side, whereby they wholeheartedly support criminal activity. These lawyers are anti-American.

The American legal system is out of control. "Rights" have been accorded unreasonably and in conflict with everyone else's. Everyone can sue almost everyone. The threat to sue bullies companies and governments, because the rules and details are so extensive and now override both justice and government purpose.


Ramat Shlomo construction (A.P./Tara Todras-Whitehill)

PM Netanyahu had referred to certain neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem. It turns out that some areas assumed to have been acquired in self-defense against Jordan, were not.

Makor Rishon checked the maps signed by representatives of Israel and Jordan on 3/4/89 in Rhodes. Ramat Shlomo is located in "No Man's Land" rather than in territory that at the time was designated as being under Jordanian control.

Among areas having the same "No Man's Land" status are Kfar Ruth, Shilat, Lapid, Neveh Shalom (the Arab-Israeli community) part of the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway route 1, Mini Israel and Ramot.

Netanyahu had cited Ramat Shlomo and protesters had objected to Israeli building plans for it (IMRA, 3/16).

The significance of this is that the areas mentioned were not acquired from Jordan in 1967, which acquisition has been the theoretical basis for demands that Israel cede those areas. The theory is poor, because Jordan had seized Judea-Samaria by aggression, a fact that neither diminishes Israel's pre-existing rights to those areas, under the Mandate, nor enhances the never sovereign Palestinian Arabs' claim to those areas.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, March 16, 2010.

Dear Friends,

The rebuilding and rededication of the Hurva ('ruined') Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem few days ago was a moment of true joy for every Israeli, and every Jew.

Some background. Construction of the synagogue began under Rabbi Judah the Hassid in 1700. The rabbi was a member of one of the first groups of Ashkenazi Jews to immigrate to Jerusalem, a few hundred from Poland. It was thought that a synagogue had existed on the spot since the Second Century B.C.E.

The Hurva Synagogue was rebuilt under Ibrahim Pasha in 1836 and finally completed in 1856. Designed in a grand Neo-Byzantine style, it was one of the largest buildings in the Old City.

In 1948, members of the Jordanian Arab Legion, led by the same regime which outlawed Jewish access to all Jewish holy places in Jerusalem and Hebron, including the Western Wall and the Tomb of the Patriarchs, blew up the beautiful synagogue. (To see photos go to:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Hurva_Synagogue_between_1934-1939.jpg)

Hurva Synagogue

Jordanians also used the Jewish headstones from the Mount of Olives Cemetery to pave roads. Altogether, the Arab Legion destroyed 29 synagogues during the War of Independence. When Arabs were in charge of Jewish holy sites, they destroyed them.

Now, not only are the Palestinians guilty of having blown up this synagogue, but have the unmitigated gall to protest its rebuilding! The Gaza-based head of al-Quds International Institution warned against the reopening of the Hurva synagogue as part of an Israeli plan to erect a Jewish temple on al-Aqsa ruins(!!!)And Hilary Clinton wants Israel to prove its dedication to peace?!!!

In the meantime, anti-Semitic nut job websites, like VNN and Goyfire ("Hammering out the Jew one Broadcast at a time")wrote that: "Israeli officials have reportedly called on Israelis to march into the al-Aqsa Mosque on Tuesday, highly revered as the third holiest site in the Muslim world."

Funny, no one told me.

The current American Administration, by siding with Israel's enemies, have emboldened them and every other anti-Semite in the world to spread this preposterous poison. Thanks Barack, Hilary. They couldn't do it without you! And if you think we are going to let these bloody terrorists take over an inch of Jerusalem, you are deluded, no matter how much pressure you exert. We will wait until the good folks in America come to their senses and vote you into oblivion. Maybe then the Saudis can offer you a job? After all that scraping and bowing to them, it's the least they can do, no?

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 16, 2010.


After arresting seven people suspected of plotting to murder a provocative Swedish cartoonist, Ireland police released an American female suspect without indictment. U.S. officials still are investigating. Her status in Ireland remains unclear. The woman, Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, recently converted to Islam. Her parents are wondering what happened to her young son.

"Sheikh Ahmed, 45, a law student of the Waterford Inst. Of Technology, said some coverage in the tabloids — include images of Osama bin Laden — hurts the Muslim community by stirring up tensions. 'It's really shocking to us,' he said, 'Islam means peace. Can you make peace with terrorism?'" (Neil Shah, Vanessa O'Connell, Evan Perez, Wall St. J., 3/15, A3.)

Couldn't the government involved have notified the grandparents what happened to the boy?

Perhaps Mr. Ahmed has a language problem, but he ought to know that "Islam" means submission. It often has meant war on those who do not submit.

Perhaps some tabloids failed to differentiate between moderate Muslims and terrorists. Does Ahmed? He objects to comparisons of the accused plotters with images of bin Laden, actually a terrorist, not a peace-loving Muslim?

Muslims calling themselves moderates seldom object to Islamist terrorists except when the terrorists are caught. If those who profess to be moderates are so, they could do much to undermine the Islamist appeal to Muslim youth by disowning the Radical ideology.


PM Netanyahu admitted that Israel takes the longest among developed countries to issue building permits. He is introducing legislation to streamline the process (IMRA, 3/15).

It takes so long partly because it has many steps, as does New York City. Procedural steps is the trend in the U.S.. Israel also bases permit decisions for Jews on political factors. The Left-wing Defense Minister has been able to freeze building permits in Judea-Samaria for a supposedly right-wing administration.

Arabs claim that they can't get permits, but they can and they have. It takes a long time, there.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, March 16, 2010.

The entire city of Jerusalem must remain under Israeli control! It indeed is an international city, open to travelers worldwide. If the so-called Palestinian authorities ever control the eastern sector of this city; endowed with so much history; venerated by Jews, Christians, Muslims, as well as many other sects; that part of Jerusalem will likely be cut off from the rest of the world. That sad fact can be deduced when one comprehends the philosophy of those anti-secularists, especially the terrorist organization of Hamas, who have infected Arab culture in that region. Many so-called Palestinians danced in the street after Islamic terrorists attacked the American homeland on 09/11/2001. Do we really believe such folks would leave the borders of any city under their jurisdiction open to others? If the eastern sector of Jerusalem, now populated by mostly Arabs, becomes the capital of any envisioned Palestinian State; if Israel is forced to cede that territory; radical Arabs will see to it that the "infidel", everyone not like them, will be forbidden from entering. Period! That is just a fact of life; like it or not.

Currently, the Israeli government, led by the intrepid Benjamin Netanyahu, refuses to cease constructing houses in the eastern sector of Jerusalem for Jewish residents. Hopefully, but not likely, the Obama Administration is merely posturing when it condemns Israel for expanding her presence in this international city. Would America's current leaders be so apt to condemn Israel if they understood who they are dealing with on the Arab side of the table? The leader of Fatah, presumably the more moderate Palestinian faction, Mahmoud Abbas, wined and dined at the White House by President Obama's predecessor George W. Bush; is in fact a Holocaust revisionist. Abbas's doctoral thesis, written the 1980s, asserted Zionists participated in the genocide for political gain, gas chambers were a fabrication, the number of Jewish deaths were greatly exaggerated, and on and on. He has never denounced this abomination. Furthermore, many if not most Palestinian leaders and their supporters concur with Abbas. Why then should Israel, America's one reliable ally in the Middle East, cede one inch of territory to her mortal enemy? American leaders should stop lecturing Israel, stop overlooking the facts on the ground, move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and seriously attempt to broker a Palestinian State within the boundaries of Jordan, at least four times the size of tiny Israel and the true homeland of the Palestinians. Would the Obama Administration even consider pursuing such a logical plan?

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 Emanuel A. Winston, March 16, 2010.

President Barack Hussein "Barry Soetoro" Obama indicates that he is advancing his mission to sever America from Israel — rapidly.

When the Arab Muslim nations (aka Arab League) couldn't crush Israel in seven wars, they patiently proceeded to use their valuable oil. The oil weapon was effective in recruiting other oil-dependent nations to chew away at the U.S.-Israel relationship. The Muslim Arabs were certain that, without America, their vast numbers of Muslims, unlimited money and huge weapons' stockpiles, would allow them to succeed in the Genocide of the Jews in the Jewish Nation/State of Israel.

Buying politicians has never been a problem. If the purchase was made when bright Muslim students were still very young, they could be sent to the best American and European universities. When they emerged with a different persona, excellent, unaccented language of the nation which hosted them, their next stop would be a series of pre-planned (and paid for) steps to higher office in their host country.

Always behind them in the Shadows was the Saudi oil money, laundered by their confederates in the host countries to patiently support their campaigns to office. But, these "students" were first taught the Koran in Islamic "madrassas" (schools that taught strictest Islam).

President Barack Hussein Obama was registered in an Indonesian school as Barry Soetoro by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro with his religion listed as Muslim and citizenship as Indonesian.

They were Muslims at birth and Muslims by brain-washing in strict Islamic schools. Once taught this form of Islam, they remained Muslims — forever — regardless of what other religion they adopted as their cover in their host Western country.

From his very first day in office as America's President, Barack Hussein "Soetoro" Obama launched direct and indirect attacks against the Jewish Nation/State of Israel. Shortly thereafter Obama went on an "apology" tour of the world, bowing to dictators and denigrating America — promising he would change America's face. Then he adopted an "outreach" policy to the Muslim and Arab nations. There are 22 Arab/Muslim nations plus 34 more Muslim nations, for a total of 57 Muslim countries in the world.

Obama particularly honored Iran and Syria with his favors. These two countries had assisted the "Jihadists" (warriors for Islam) who had been killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also had aided the suicide truck bomber who blew up the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon October 23, 1983, killing 242 Marines, wounded countless others, plus the April 18, 1983 suicide bombing of the American Embassy, in West Beirut, killing 63. (1) A judge ruled that Iran was responsible for the 1983 Marine Barracks bombing. (2)

Many speculated that Obama not only kept the Muslim persona of his youth but, he may have been a "sleeper mole"serving Islamic nations, some of whom funded his Harvard and Columbia education and later his run in Chicago politics and for his short stint as Senator from Illinois.

The Jewish Nation/State of Israel has complained bitterly and rightfully so that Obama's promises to use sanctions to stop Iran's irrevocable march to Nuclear Capability and Nuclear Genocide. Obama's promises were deceitful, misleading and dangerous — as well as deliberate foot-dragging. As it turned out, Obama and his advisors used every stratagem to avoid effective action to stop Iran's acceleration of its Nuclear Empire. The promises were more directed at Israel to force them NOT to strike Iran's 20 or so nuclear facilities than to actually stop Iran.

Others were involved in purposefully allowing Iran to achieve full Nuclear Function. We all recall the falsified NIE Report (National Intelligence Estimate) of December 2007, initiated by the U.S. State Department through the CIA during the Bush Administration falsely claiming that Iran had ceased Nuclear development in 2003. That was in the title of the 2007 NIE Report but, the body of the Report told the truth to any who cared to really read it.

The "idea" was to subvert any plans of President George W. Bush to strike any of Iran's Nuclear facilities. You can see most of them fully displayed in the August 2008 issue of National Geographic, labeled as exactly what they were.

Clearly, this deception/subversion assisted Iran to actually Nuclearize. Clearly, this was an overt act of High Treason but, the Congress refused (so far) to act against the State Department, the NIE under its Director Dennis Blair and the CIA. This act remains on the books.

I believe that when Iran either directly or indirectly uses their Nuclear devices on America, Israel and/or Europe, President Obama will be impeached and charged with High Treason. However, at this moment in time Obama is protected by a majority in Congress who will probably not investigate Obama's role in bringing America to her knees. (They would rightly be too embarrassed.)

Should a Nuclear device be unleashed against American cities by Islamic proxies that will be the time to start impeachment proceedings under a new Congress.

At the moment however, Obama and his appointees are vigorously working at subverting and re-partitioning Israel for the benefit of Fatah and Hamas politicians before declaring a severance between America and Israel for whatever reason, he will invent.

But, first the softening up campaign must go further along in the American public to defame Israel and insure no significant political backlash by the American public, particularly from the pro-Israel Christians and Jews.

As for Hillary, Biden, Mitchell, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, their assurances of Obama's commitment to back Israel or protect her in case of an attack, well, those assurances can be filed in the waste basket — along with every agreement with the Muslim Arabs which Israel was forced to sign — none of which were kept by the Arab Muslims.

As the famous Chinese warrior philosopher, Sun Tzu, taught — mislead your enemy (victim) with false promises of peace — or words to that effect.

That is also the Muslim principal of "al-Taqiyya' (deception, lying, dissimulation, pretense) as Mohammed put into the Koran and his "Hadith" (Oral Teachings of how he lived his life that his followers are supposed to emulate.)

Israel would give the Muslim Arabs "peace for peace" but not Jewish Land for Peace. That's a classic oxymoron.


1. www.historynet.com/blowup-beirut-us-marines- peacekeeping-mission-turns-deadly.htm

This period of chaos witnessed the beginning of attacks against U.S. and Western interests, such as the 18 April 1983 suicide attack at the U.S. Embassy in West Beirut, which killed 63. Following the bombing, the Reagan White House "ordered naval bombardments of Druze positions, which resulted in numerous casualties, mostly non-combatant," and the "reply to the American bombardments" was the suicide attack.[28] Then, on 23 October 1983, a devastating suicide bombing in Beirut targeted the headquarters of the U.S. and French forces, killing 241 American and 58 French servicemen.

2. http://www.search.com/reference/Lebanese civil war

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, March 16, 2010.

To the Editor, The National Post:

Let us be clear about construction in and around Jerusalem. There is a lot of it going on. Most of it is Arab and most of that is without technical, safety or regulatory permits. On the other hand, there is some Jewish building as well, and most of it is on land that was owned by Jews prior to the massacre of Jews and the ethnic cleansing that happened leading up to 1948. The rest of it is on land that was captured/liberated by Israel in 1967, and all of that is on land that has been legally re-bought, often at inflated prices, to the benefit of the Arab squatters. Furthermore, the Israeli Supreme Court is on record insisting that all tenancy must be available to Jew and Arab alike (a condition that does not apply to illegal Arab construction). Finally, we all know that Jerusalem was specifically and clearly excluded from any unilateral building freeze statement by Israel (it is not an agreement, there is no "other side" or reciprocal aspect). So, unless we are angling for another round of ethnic cleansing of Jews from Jerusalem, or there is a serious political agenda behind this, what is the fuss all about?

Paul Rotenberg

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 15, 2010.

Those of you who know me, know that it is not a common situation for me to be rendered "speechless." I think that I am feeling that way, figuratively, because my professional standards prohibit me from saying some of the things I might like to say, and from describing the US president and secretary of state in terms that would be most cathartic. Sometimes anger sticks in the throat.

What we are seeing, quite simply, is a deliberate attempt to stoke the fires of what should have been a minor dispute with Israel in an attempt to put us on the defensive and push us into making concessions we would not otherwise make.


After I wrote yesterday, the news broke with regard to what Hillary Clinton allegedly demanded of Netanyahu during her 45 minute phone harangue last week:

First, and not surprisingly, she wanted the plans for building the 1,600 apartments in Ramot Shlomo cancelled.

But then, she demanded a "meaningful gesture" towards PA president Abbas before Mitchell returns to this area on Friday. This is being broadly interpreted as a demand for a prisoner release. And this is the sort of information that can render one speechless. All that talk about commitment to Israeli security, followed by an apparent demand that would appease Abbas at the price of putting Israeli lives at risk.

Lastly, she wanted Israel to declare that "core issues" would be put on the table during the four-month proximity talks, something that Israel has not agreed to.


The very worst thing we could do would be to cave on any of this. Standing strong now is imperative.

Journalist Moshe Dann, writing in YNet, thinks that what is going on is a blessing in disguise:

"Supporters of Israel should rejoice that Biden and Clinton have emerged from Obama's closet hatred of Israel. Their wild attack, as deadly as it seemed initially, however, did little or no damage. It clears the way for a robust Israeli response, one that will set the course of Israeli policy and the guidelines of future discussions.

"PM Netanyahu now has the opportunity to defend Israel's position, not only on Jerusalem, but other issues of Israeli sovereignty that have been disputed. This includes the right to decide on what Jewish heritage sites include and the right to preserve those historical and archeological sites, the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria, and the right of self-defense."

And Dann may well be correct. The mask has been dropped from the Obama administration. Claims that its representatives love us and have our security uppermost in their minds can only fall on deaf ears.

The key is a strong government here.


And indeed, at a Likud faction meeting today, Prime Minister Netanyahu said:

"Construction in Jerusalem will continue in any part of the city as it has during the last 42 years.

"In the past 40 years, there was no government that limited construction in any Jerusalem area or neighborhood. Establishing Jewish neighborhoods did not hurt Jerusalem's Arab residents and was not at their expense."

Additionally, Netanyahu said that at the end of the ten months, the freeze on construction would be lifted.

So, once again I ask that you contact the prime minister. Tell him, Right on! Don't cave. Stay strong no matter what. The future of our nation depends on this strength.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses.


Meanwhile, our "partner for peace," the Palestinian Authority, is ratcheting up the incitement at every turn. It's difficult to know what to focus on first.

[] I've written about the reconstruction of the Hurva synagogue, in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. (See more about this below.) At a press conference today, Mohammad Dahlan, a member of the Central Committee of Fatah, charged that the synagogue is built on the ruins of the Mosque of Omar.

The press conference, by the way, had the theme, "Judaizing Jerusalem." That oxymoron is absolutely my favorite charge against us. How do we "Judaize" a city that at its very core IS Jewish?

[] Ahmed Qurei, former PA prime minister and member of the PLO executive committee, warned that "If Israel continues these practices, another intifada will break out. If matters remain at this level, regardless of whether we take the decision or not, it is coming. If Israel continues these practices, it is coming."

[] Then there is the hot issue of the Temple Mount. This time the Palestinian Authority has joined the radical Islamic Movement of Israel in calls for Israeli Arabs and residents of eastern Jerusalem to go to the Temple Mount to "protect it from the Jews." Both Dahlan and Khatem Abdel Kader, who holds the Jerusalem portfolio in Fatah, are involved here.

Palestinian Media Watch reports that the PA is fanning the flames by bringing back an old libel. In 1969, a non-Jewish Australian started a fire in the Al Aksa mosque. It was extinguished and damage to the mosque was repaired. Ten years ago, the PA spread the lie that it was a Jew that set the fire with the help of the Israeli government. That charge was reiterated on PA TV this week.

There have been on-going Palestinian Arab riots in Jerusalem and elsewhere in response to all of this. Police are out in force.


The incitement by the PA is so blatant, and the US silence in response to it so deafening, that finally we can only laugh at American charges (building homes!) against us.


Marwan Barghouti, in Israeli prison for five life terms, has just completed his doctoral degree in political science at Cairo University. According to Khaled Abu Toameh, "Barghouti was able to complete his thesis with the help of hundreds of books and documents that Israeli authorities allow inmates to bring into prison."

There is something seriously wrong with us.


In an incursion into Ramallah, the IDF has caught Maher U'dda, the terrorist responsible for the bombing of the Jerusalem Cafe Hillel in 2003. I rejoice for this bit of retributive justice.

This was the attack that killed seven people, including Dr. David Applebaum, the much-loved doctor for emergency services (who often treated victims of terrorist attacks), and his daughter, Nava, who was about to be married. (Family that had traveled to Israel for her wedding went to her funeral instead.)

This is also the attack that I heard from my apartment, only blocks away. It was obvious from the size of the explosion what was happening and my blood ran cold.

According to Israel National News, the PA had held U'dda at one point, but then released him.


Let the world say what it will. I still think our foreign minister, Avigdor Leiberman, is a good guy. True, he is not diplomatic. Rather, he operates from his gut.

We are currently hosting the president of Brazil, Luis Lula Da Silva. Da Silva refused to visit the grave of founder of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl, and lay a wreath.

Today Lieberman boycotted the special Knesset session held in Da Silva's honor.


I end here on an upbeat note with a Jerusalem Post editorial on the symbolism of the Hurva synagogue:

"Twice destroyed and twice rebuilt, the Hurva synagogue is a symbol of the Jewish people's tenacious insistence on returning to its rightful land against all odds.

"...More than just a house of prayer, the Hurva was a venue for key historical events — Herzl's visit to Jerusalem, a recruitment ceremony for Ze'ev Jabotinsky's Jewish Legion, the honoring of pro-Zionist British High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel — leading to the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty.

"It symbolizes, perhaps more than any other site, the Jewish people's yearnings to return to its homeland. It is concrete proof that Judaism cannot be reduced solely to an abstract religious faith devoid of national aspirations, as some — most notably German Jews of the 19th century and contemporary Jewish anti-Zionists — attempted to claim.

"While the Western Wall has been the focal point of prayers for redemption, the Hurva has been at the center of Jewish activism to maintain a presence in the Land of Israel."

A dedication ceremony was held today. Read the entire editorial, with historical information:
Arlene Kushner is Senior Analyst for the Center for Near East Policy Research in Jerusalem. Contact her at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Buddy Macy, March 15, 2010.


Because the Never Again Is Now campaign is so crucial for Israel and the Jewish People, please call me if you have any questions regarding the project or your donation.

Buddy Macy

This below is by the Rev. Dr. John Lupoli, President of The World Council of Independent Christian Churches


The World Council of Independent Christian Churches is a global fellowship that represents more than 380,000 churches, ministries, para-church groups, Christian schools and hospitals with approximately 44 million congregants in 80 countries. The WCICC is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit religious organization. All contributions made to the WCICC are 100% tax deductible for Federal income tax purposes.

The WCICC is committed to the "Never Again Is Now for Israel, America & the Free World" project, (www.NeverAgainIsNow.com) and is accepting donations for this project. All contributions are to be made out to the WCICC and any donation marked "Never Again Is Now" will go directly toward the project.

From its inception, the World Council of Independent Christian Churches has held a pro-Israel, pro-Jewish position on all issues pertaining to the People of G-d. The WCICC fully supports the Jewish People's Declaration of Independence and the Never Again Is Now website that has at its core the belief that we should say "no to the two-state solution that would lead to Israel's destruction from within and destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure now." We believe we must do something of Biblical proportions to ensure the survival of Israel and uphold America's just purpose and noble cause...NOW!

The WCICC is an Accredited NGO in Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. We believe that with proper planning and proper funding we can use this status to advance the cause for Israel. The ministry is in the process of obtaining signatures to the Jewish People's Declaration of Independence, proclaiming that "the six million Holocaust victims' voices will be heard." We will present the signatures inside the United Nations and read the Declaration aloud. We will also send a copy of the Declaration to every ambassador to the United Nations.

The WCICC is proud and honored to support the Never Again Is Now for Israel, America & the Free World project and urges everyone to join us in supporting this critical endeavor...for we, the living, have a moral obligation to act when Jews are being threatened with extinction. Thank you.

Rev. Dr. John Lupoli

Legal Office Post Office Box 76, Bowling Green Station, New York, NY 10274-0076
Home Office Post Office Box 406, Harper's Ferry WV 25425-0406
Administrative Office 177 Riverside Avenue, Suite F1172, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Website: www.wcicc.org

Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, March 15, 2010.

... or else she is the most abjectly ignorant of all lawyers.

Hillary and her boss, BHO, are out of order. Both are and remain lawyers, (even if they no longer are licensed) so it is safe to assume they are deliberately and intentionally endangering the US by putting themselves on the wrong side of the law. The law and the Treaty binding the US thereunder and thereto is presented in Prof. Howard Grief's seminal analysis: The Legal Foundation of the Borders of Israel under International Law.

The borders of Israel encompass the region Hillary and BHO are helping the Arab invaders seize from Israel. Clearly, the US, through its State Dept. operatives, are in violation of international law which recognized that the entire West Bank, all of Jerusalem, the Gaza region and most of the Golan Heights, as well as most of what the British improperly gifted to the Hashemites (which became the new state of Jordan). If US functionaries continue to arm the intransigent arab forces who are attempting to obliterate Israel and destroy its rightful claims to its land, these same functionaries are opening Pandora's Box such that antagonists to the US can use Hillary's stratagems to attack our nation on the same grounds that these US functionaries are attempting to use against Israel.

These two lawyers are so short-sighted and intent on scoring points favored by the arab oil states that they are endangering the sovereignty of the United States. How so? Answer: As lawyers and US citizens, both BHO and Hillary are bound by the law and even though both are no longer licensed, they remain lawyers, and their exercise of their powers cannot compel another nation to bend to their whims and to violate international law. In short, their stratagems have no binding effect on any foreign state. Moreovewr, if the US State Department and BHO continue to arm US enemies — they being the Arabs howling for war and pretending to have the right to destroy Israel's sovereignty — then the State Department MUST be investigated by congress.

An impartial investigation will reveal that for the past 40 years, US State Dept. functionaries — to name but a few: former Secretaries of States James Baker, Colin Powell, possibly Condi Rice, and certainly the Clintons, and US POTUS (the Bush family, the Clintons) have directly or indirectly benefited from gifts, emoluments, grants, rewards, enormous loans, from the Saudis and other Arab oil states. This must stop.

BHO only has himself to blame: It was HE who insulted the United States and irrevocably sullied himself when he bowed to "king" Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. It was BHO who insulted and enraged the Chinese when he bowed to the emperor of Japan. BHO is a Harvard-educated lawyer who can be presumed to have deliberately engaged in these insulting acts directed against the People of the United States and the People of China.

We are the Secular Christians for Zion (SC4Z) and we demand that Hillary be removed from office, that the State Dept. be "probed" and that congress enact legislation forbidding US presidents as well as any and all current or former members of US Government to accept payment, gifts, and/or anything of value from foreigners or foreign sources unless the foreign donors are immediate relatives of the recipients and the "things of value" immediately reported to the public.

We remind you of what the former Saudi ambassador to the US is reported to have bragged: "If the reputation builds that the Saudis take care of their friends when they leave office, you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office."
— Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, Ambasador of Saudi Arabia to the United States.

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, March 15, 2010.

1. To Obama: No You Can't (give the Savages Jerusalem)!!!
By Steven Plaut

No sooner did the Obama Administration denounce Israel for its building activities in Jerusalem when hordes of violent Palestinian thugs took to the streets of holy Jerusalem. As always, the Arabs show the world how sacred Jerusalem is to them by filling it with violence. They rioted to demand that Jews be prohibited from opening a synagogue that had been destroyed by Arab troops, a synagogue located smack in the middle of the Jewish Quarter in an area having no theological significance for Moslems. Was it a coincidence that the Arab riots followed so closely the Obaman bile hurled against Israel? Well, if you believe that, I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell you that goes into Brooklyn.

Vice President Biden, who sometimes likes to call himself "Zionist Joe," had trouble containing his rage at the Jews. On an official state visit to Israel, his Kodak moments were interrupted when an Israeli official announced that Israel has plans to build a lot of new housing in East Jerusalem. The Vice President was aghast at the chutzpah. Secretary of State Clinton issued a series of shrill verbal attacks against Israel. Talk about a "disproportionate response!"

How dare the Jews construct housing in their own capital? Just because Washington builds housing in the District of Columbia without asking its allies for permission does not mean that the Israelis can build the same way in THEIR capital! Don't those Israelis realize that the United States has plans to transfer East Jerusalem to the terrorists of the Palestinian Authority or its Hamas overlords?

To put the Obama Administration's temper tantrum over Jerusalem into perspective, one has to try to imagine the following scenario:

Try to imagine the allies of the United States condemning the displacement of the Japanese population in Guam shortly after Guam was liberated by the United States in 1944. Guam, after all, had been conquered fair and square by the Imperial Japanese military the day after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Japanese troops and civilians had lived in Guam throughout most of the war. The American presence there, which was eradicated on December 8, 1940, was itself of recent and dubious creation. The United States became occupier of Guam only in 1898 as part of the Treaty of Paris ending the Spanish-American War. The Yanks then built a series of settlements on the island.

Now try to imagine the Allies of the United States hectoring and condemning America about displacing the Japanese already living on Guam after 1944, replacing them forcibly with American citizens. How dare the Americans move their own civilians into homes they legally own?

If you can imagine all that, you will have a pretty good understanding of the Obama-Biden assault against Israel for building homes for Jews in Jerusalem. Many of these homes are within inches of Mount Scopus and the Old City of Jerusalem.

The State Department is soiling itself in rage over Israel allowing Jews to move into the Simon the Righteous neighborhood in East Jerusalem, also known as Sheikh Jarrah. You may recall that Sheikh Jarrah was where a horrific massacre of a convoy of Jewish medical personnel headed for the Hadassah Hospital on Mt. Scopus took place in 1948. 79 Jews were murdered in cold blood and their bodies mutilated. When East Jerusalem was liberated from its illegal Jordanian occupiers in 1967, Sheikh Jarrah should have been emptied entirely of its murderous residents and turned over to the families of the victims of that massacre as compensation!

East Jerusalem was made Judenrein, with its Jews ethnically cleansed, in Israel's 1948-49 war of independence. Before that Jews had lived in East Jerusalem almost without interruption since King David conquered it. Those attacking Israel are insisting that she leave that crime of ethnic cleansing in tact, un-redressed. Their demands are equivalent to demands upon the United States to leave the Japanese presence on Guam unchanged after 1944.

To put this another way, let's ask just why the State Department objects to Jews moving into homes in East Jerusalem, homes they legally and legitimately own. The answer is that the State Department plans to force Israel to turn East Jerusalem over to some future Palestinian terror state, and that will be harder to do if East Jerusalem is filled up with Jews. But that is precisely the reason why Israel SHOULD build housing in East Jerusalem!!

If Bibi Netanyahu had any sense of Jewish history or an ounce of courage and self-respect, he would answer the complaints coming from Clinton and the Biden delegation thus: "We understand that you want East Jerusalem preserved as an area unpolluted by the presence of Jews so that it can be transferred in the future to the terrorists. And that is why we refuse to agree to your calls for a building freeze anywhere in Jerusalem. We will build like the dickens to prevent anyone transferring Jerusalem to any 'Palestinians' from any political movement. And if the result of that is for the war between Israel and the Arabs to continue for another thousand years, then we choose that over giving up Jerusalem."

Israel's position should be simply that if the Arab world refuses to come to terms and make peace with an Israel controlling all of Jerusalem, then we do not believe that they will come to terms or make peace with any Israel that has relinquished Jerusalem either. The Arabs can threaten Israel all they want about the dire consequences if Israel refuses to turn Jerusalem over to them. Israel's response should be, "You can't have it, period."

And if there were any doubts as to who has the moral and legal right to control East Jerusalem, they were removed in the violent rioting by Palestinians over the opening of the rebuilt Hurva synagogue this week. Tradition has it that it stands on the site of synagogues going back to the second century AD. One synagogue standing there in the 1700s was destroyed, leading to the nickname of the site, the "Hurva" or "the Destruction." A later synagogue was constructed on the site in 1864. It remained there until Jordanian soldiers, who were illegally holding the Old City after 1948, demolished it. Yes, those same soldiers of the Kingdom of Jordan, which is so often proclaimed moderate and peace seeking, carried out unprecedented crimes against humanity, by systematically demolishing almost all the Jewish shrines in the Old City.

Under Arab rule (by Jordan), the religious shrines of Jerusalem were systematically demolished, profaned and violated. Under Israeli rule, every religious group is free to practice its religion in Jerusalem and its shrines are protected. End of story. The Arabs forfeited any moral claims they might have once had to govern the city when they trashed the Jewish shrines of the city. Any questions?

The Hurva synagogue is nowhere near the Mosque of al-Aqsa or any other Islamic shrines in Jerusalem. It is located close to the Ramban or Nachmanides synagogue, which was converted by the pro-Nazi Grand Mufti into a mosque in 1948 and used as a factory under the illegal Jordanian occupation. The Arabs have absolutely no legitimate claims to the site. Indeed, the reign of intentional destruction carried out by Jordan after 1948 should nullify altogether once and for all any claims the Arab world has to East Jerusalem.

If the Arabs take to violence when Jews open a synagogue, then there is only one conclusion that Israel can draw: there is nothing to negotiate with these savages. The only way to respond to their violent opposition towards Israel building in Jerusalem is with disproportionate force!  

2. Wall Street Journal Editorial:
Obama's Turn Against Israel
The U.S. makes a diplomatic crisis out of a blunder.

In recent weeks, the Obama Administration has endorsed "healthy relations" between Iran and Syria, mildly rebuked Syrian President Bashar Assad for accusing the U.S. of "colonialism," and publicly apologized to Moammar Gadhafi for treating him with less than appropriate deference after the Libyan called for "a jihad" against Switzerland.

When it comes to Israel, however, the Administration has no trouble rising to a high pitch of public indignation. On a visit to Israel last week, Vice President Joe Biden condemned an announcement by a mid-level Israeli official that the government had approved a planning stage — the fourth out of seven required — for the construction of 1,600 housing units in north Jerusalem. Assuming final approval, no ground will be broken on the project for at least three years.

But neither that nor repeated apologies from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prevented Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — at what White House sources ostentatiously said was the personal direction of President Obama — from calling the announcement "an insult to the United States." White House political chief David Axelrod got in his licks on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, lambasting Israel for what he described as "an affront." Since nobody is defending the Israeli announcement, least of all an obviously embarrassed Israeli government, it's difficult to see why the Administration has chosen this occasion to spark a full-blown diplomatic crisis with its most reliable Middle Eastern ally. Mr. Biden's visit was intended to reassure Israelis that the Administration remained fully committed to Israeli security and legitimacy. In a speech at Tel Aviv University two days after the Israeli announcement, Mr. Biden publicly thanked Mr. Netanyahu for "putting in place a process to prevent the recurrence" of similar incidents.

The subsequent escalation by Mrs. Clinton was clearly intended as a highly public rebuke to the Israelis, but its political and strategic logic is puzzling. The U.S. needs Israel's acquiescence in the Obama Administration's increasingly drawn-out efforts to halt Iran's nuclear bid through diplomacy or sanctions. But Israel's restraint is measured in direct proportion to its sense that U.S. security guarantees are good. If Israel senses that the Administration is looking for any pretext to blow up relations, it will care much less how the U.S. might react to a military strike on Iran.

As for the West Bank settlements, it is increasingly difficult to argue that their existence is the key obstacle to a peace deal with the Palestinians. Israel withdrew all of its settlements from Gaza in 2005, only to see the Strip transform itself into a Hamas statelet and a base for continuous rocket fire against Israeli civilians.

Israeli anxieties about America's role as an honest broker in any diplomacy won't be assuaged by the Administration's neuralgia over this particular housing project, which falls within Jerusalem's municipal boundaries and can only be described as a "settlement" in the maximalist terms defined by the Palestinians. Any realistic peace deal will have to include a readjustment of the 1967 borders and an exchange of territory, a point formally recognized by the Bush Administration prior to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. If the Obama Administration opts to transform itself, as the Europeans have, into another set of lawyers for the Palestinians, it will find Israeli concessions increasingly hard to come by.

That may be the preferred outcome for Israel's enemies, both in the Arab world and the West, since it allows them to paint Israel as the intransigent party standing in the way of "peace." Why an Administration that repeatedly avers its friendship with Israel would want that is another question.

Then again, this episode does fit Mr. Obama's foreign policy pattern to date: Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze. It has happened to Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Colombia. Now it's Israel's turn. 3. http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/TAU%20-%20Shlomo%20Sand%20-%20justifier%20of%20Arab%20terrorism.htm Tel Aviv University — Shlomo Sand (Dept of History) now serving as official justifier of Arab terrorism against Jews.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, March 15, 2010.

A recently released report by by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (Malam) shows Hamas deliberately used civilians and children as human shields, putting the lie to the Goldstone Report which "found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack." 'Hamas used kids as human shields'

This below is by Yaakov Katz and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post.

Exclusive: New research report highlights extensive use of civilians during Gaza op.


Hamas gunmen used Palestinian children as human shields, and established command centers and Kassam launch pads in and near more than 100 mosques and hospitals during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip last year, according to a new Israeli report being released on Monday that aims to counter criticism of the IDF.

The detailed 500-page report, obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post, was written by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (Malam), a small research group led by Col. (res.) Reuven Erlich, a former Military Intelligence officer who works closely with the army.

The IDF and the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) cooperated with the report's authors and declassified hundreds of photographs, videos, prisoner interrogations and Hamas-drawn sketches as part of an effort to counter the criticism leveled at Israel in the UN-sponsored Goldstone Report.

Work on the Malam report began immediately after former judge Richard Goldstone issued his damning report of Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip in September.

One example of the material revealed in the Malam report is an-until-now classified sketch of the village of Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza discovered by IDF troops during the operation, that details the extensive deployment of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and snipers inside and adjacent to civilian homes.

The sketch was discovered in a home of a Hamas operative together with several IEDs and Kalashnikov rifles.

"The Goldstone Report is one-sided, biased, selective and deceptive, since it simply accepts Hamas claims at face value and presents everything through Hamas's eyes," Erlich said.

The Malam report also provides an analysis of another sketch found during the offensive in the Atatra neighborhood in northern Gaza City that Erlich said proves Hamas's culpability for the ensuing death and destruction.

"By placing all of their weaponry next to homes, by operating out of homes, mosques and hospitals, by firing rockets next to schools and by using human shields, Hamas is the one responsible for the civilian deaths during the operation," Erlich said.

The Goldstone Report states that its authors "found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack."

The Malam report, however, brings declassified videos that show how Hamas used civilians as human shields and deployed its weaponry and command centers inside civilian homes.

In one home, the IDF discovered a note, written in Arabic, that read: "We are your brothers, fighters in this holy war, and we used your home and some of your possessions. We are sorry."

This note, Malam's report said, was a clear indication of how Hamas took over civilian homes to use to attack Israeli forces.

According to a previously undisclosed interrogation of a Hamas operative, one Hamas cell transported rockets on the back of a wagon in which children were also sitting. In other cases, the Hamas operative said, Hamas fighters disguised themselves as women carrying babies to ensure that they would not be hit by IDF troops.

The intelligence information is backed up by videos, including one declassified air force video from January 6, 2009, which shows a terrorist shooting at troops from the roof of a building. After spotting an Israeli aircraft, the terrorist goes to the building's entrance and calls to nearby civilians to help him escape. A few moments later, a group of children arrive at the entrance to the home and the terrorist walks out.

Another video from January 13 shows a senior Hamas terrorist — spotted by an aircraft — walking by himself down a street. After spotting the aircraft, the senior terrorist runs over to an elderly woman walking nearby and continues walking next to her. Later, the IDF discovered that the "elderly woman" was really a Hamas operative in disguise.

Malam also takes Goldstone to task for his claim that "the mission found no evidence that members of Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat in civilian dress," and as a result could "not find a violation of the obligation not to endanger the civilian population in this respect."

In response, Malam interviewed a number of IDF officers who provided testimony that a vast majority of Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians, and Hamas videos that showed fighters — during the Israeli offensive — wearing civilian clothing while firing mortars and rocket-propelled grenades at IDF troops.

The Malam report has an entire section on Hamas's use of mosques, revealing intelligence information that Hamas used almost 100 mosques inside Gaza to fight against the IDF.

"Hamas systematically used mosques as part of its combat doctrine," the report alleges, in contrast to Goldstone's report, which claims that the mission was unable to make a determination about the issue.

The Malam report brings countless videos and photographs of dozens of mosques that were used by Hamas to store weapons, functioned as command centers or whose grounds were used to fire rockets into Israel.

The report also details Hamas's use of hospitals during the offensive, providing evidence that Hamas fired at IDF troops adjacent to and hid weaponry and senior operatives inside at least eight hospitals in the Gaza Strip.

The Malam report devotes an entire section to proving how Hamas's police and internal security forces were involved in military/terrorist activities and were not, as Goldstone claimed, civilian entities whose only duty was enforcing law and order.

In contrast to the report the IDF is working on and plans to release in the coming months that focuses on IDF operations, Malam's report is about Hamas, its combat tactics and the way it operates from within densely populated urban centers in Gaza, as well as the events that led up to Cast Lead in late December 2008 that Malam says were disregarded by Goldstone.

The report points to four basic flaws in the Goldstone Report: It does not deal with the nature of Hamas — its terrorist aspects and ideology; it minimizes the gravity of the terrorist attacks against Israel, focusing on rocket fire during the six months before Operation Cast Lead while devoting little space to the rocket and mortar fire that began in 2001; it does not deal with the Hamas military buildup in the Gaza Strip in the year preceding Cast Lead that threatened Israel, but at the same time did provide extensive historical coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and it ignored the role Iran and Syria play in Gaza by aiding Hamas and supplying it with explosives and weaponry.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, March 15, 2010.

Police Nix Temple Mount Events

In light of security assessments in Jerusalem and the rioting of the past few days there, police have canceled the monthly Temple Mount Gates march, scheduled for this Monday night. Last month's event, called Sivuv She'arim (Circling the Gates), was held with the participation of 4,000 people who wished to show their solidarity with the Holy Temple in this manner.

Rabbi Chaim Richman of the Temple Institute bemoaned the cancellation and what it signifies. His remarks are brought below.

Police are concerned that the dedication events of this week for the newly-rebuilt Hurva Synagogue in the Old City will spark Arab violence. The centuries-old Hurva was bombed and destroyed by the Jordanians in the 1948 War of Independence; refurbishing work has been ongoing for several years, and was completed this month.

The Circling the Gates event has been held every month for nine years, except for the times when the police do not allow it, which occurs about once or twice a year. The dancers and singers, separate groups for men and women, make their way through the Old City of Jerusalem, stopping to pray at each of the Temple Mount gates.

"This event gives expression to the Nation of Israel's deep bonds with the Temple Mount," the organizers say, "and to our anticipation and longing for the rebuilding of the Holy Temple."

One would-be participant told Arutz-7, "I feel sorrow and shame that on Rosh Chodesh Nissan [the beginning of the month of Nissan], the day on which the Tabernacle was built and New Year's Day for the Temple, we won't be able to walk around the Mount."

MK Uri Ariel (National Union) said, "The job of the police is to protect the citizens, not to cave in to Arab rioters' threats."

"The Temple Mount is the rock of our national existence," MK Ariel continued, "and the longing to return to it is shared by every Jew. The Gates Circling event directs this longing to practical channels, and therefore I regret that instead of doing everything possible to enable this important event, the police prefer to cancel it."

Rabbi Chaim Richman of the Temple Institute in Jerusalem bemoaned the national weakness indicated by the canceling of the event. He wrote that this Tuesday, March 16, is what Temple Mount supporters have dubbed the first annual International Temple Mount Awareness Day. The reason? "Because the situation vis a vis the rights of all non-Moslems at the Temple Mount has deteriorated beyond what any healthy society can tolerate — especially one that prides itself in guaranteeing the religious freedoms of all its citizens. There are indications that a total disengagement of Jews from the Temple Mount, psychologically and physically, is in preparation."

"This day was intended as an opportunity to educate and remind the Jewish people as to why the Temple Mount is important," Rabbi Richman writes. "Thus, one aspect of activities planned for this day was a visit in accordance with Jewish law to the permitted areas of the Temple Mount... For the majority of Jews, the road to the Temple Mount ends at the Western Wall. And spiritual-seeking Gentiles as well, arriving at the Temple Mount, are shocked, offended and incredulous to learn that before ascending the Mount, they are searched not just for weapons, but for a Bible. They are even more outraged to be told that no non-Moslem prayer may be uttered at the very site which is synonymous for them with G-d's promised blessings for all mankind..."

"However, it has now been announced that Jerusalem District Police have closed the Temple Mount to visitors for the next three days due to fears of Moslem riots... How ironic that in the very place which the prophets of Israel tell us is the secret of world peace, the very place which is to be the 'house of prayer for all nations,' care must be taken to ensure that there be no religious freedoms — lest Muslim sensitivities are offended..."

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 15, 2010.


In an earlier prison term, Marwan Barghouti, Israeli authorities let him get a high school diploma. Barghouti went on to instigate an Intifada. Now in prison for five life sentences, Israeli prison authorities are helping him get a PhD from Cairo University (Arutz-7, 3/12). Sometimes non-citizen Arab prisoners take correspondence courses in Israeli schools.

This assistance to Arabs is an example contradicting accusations that Israel oppresses the Arabs. Do the accusers ever note such contradictions?

Why is Israel boosting the capabilities of dedicated terrorists? Why spend money on them that could be used for defense? It would be one thing to give a car thief an alternative means of income. It is another thing to empower fanatical enemies to continue their war more skillfully. When attempting to be humane gets distorted like that, it becomes inhumane to one's own people. Nor is continued war good for the Palestinian Arabs.

Is there any way to re-educate some of those prisoners to repudiate their radical violence?


(A.P. photo/ People's Mujahadeen)

Iran has arrested 30 citizens of forming a network of nuclear spies and cyber warriors seeking to encourage the public to join forbidden demonstrations. Iran claims this was started by the Bush administration.

This finding coincides with massive regime crackdown on domestic opposition. More people are being arrested, tortured, and made to disappear for that (Arutz-7, 3/14).

The State Dept. opposed President Bush's desire to encourage domestic opposition to the clerical regime. At this point, the truth of the charges by the totalitarian regime in Iran is not clear. But dictatorships routinely pretend that the strife arises solely from outside agitation of its people, whom the regime implies are simple-minded people and easily influenced.

Government indignation has become more and more hypocritical. Perhaps the U.S. is trying to subvert the Iranian regime, a regime leading an axis against the U.S., in the interest of democracy and peace. Iran may oppose that, but is hypocritical to be indignant about it when it tries to subvert Lebanon and Israel and sponsors terrorism abroad.


On Friday, Muslim Arabs rioted in Jerusalem near the Temple Mount. Israeli intelligence has indications that Arabs plan more riots. Yes, planned. Accordingly, it now bars access to the Mount to Arab males under age 50, for a few days. The Israeli message is that Muslims are welcome to pray at the Mount, but not to desecrate holy ground with ethnic violence.

Israel anticipates additional Arab riots when the Hurva synagogue is rededicated. The news brief put it delicately, that when Jordan conquered eastern Jerusalem, it "damaged" that synagogue. [I passed the site for years, known for having just its arch left standing. Jordan demolished every synagogue in eastern Jerusalem. That is the kind of intolerance the Palestinian Authority condones by allowing its people to attack other Jewish religious sites.] And now that Israel restores the synagogue, Muslim Arabs think of rioting (Arutz-7, 3/12)

Israeli policy is, Arabs are free to practice their religion but not to use the religion as a shield for war. We Americans think of religions as peace-loving, but Muslim Arabs are gripped by an Islamist ideology that considers other religions as illegitimate and to be dominated by it. After hearing sermons at al-Aqsa making blood libels against "the Jews," young Muslims burst out and into riot mode. They need responsible, moderate, religious leaders' guidance. Where are such?

What are the results of rioting and war incited by the Radical Muslim ideology of supremacy by force? Destruction of life, property, and freedom. Anti-Zionists blame Israel for difficulties in life for Palestinian Arabs. But the choice of strife or peace is the Arabs', and they keep choosing strife. They create their own misery.


People used to think that real news mostly was what people did. Now the media gives greater attention to what people say, without verifying what they did. Realistically, news is what people think it is or means, because they act on it. Therefore, media pronouncements can be important news. When that major opinion-maker, the New York Times makes a pronouncement or starts a campaign, this really is news.

The public editor of the NY Times, Clark Hoyt, has a thoughtful piece explaining that media labels supposed to indicate someone's politics or ideology "are often too simple." For examples: (1) Someone is said to have a "Christian agenda," but different Christians have different views on the same policies. How can diversity be included in the one label?; (2) Liberals and conservatives have different viewpoints, too, so how can one proposal be called "the liberal" view?; (3) Conservationists have been called both conservative and liberal, so at least one label must be incorrect; (4) Liberal and conservative ideologies are not absolute but graduated, but people with different intensities get the same label; (5) Labels are being used as euphemisms and epithets (3/14, wk 8).

All those points are well taken. But more significant, as usual, is what Mr. Hoyt omits. Omission can be news, too, for it can conceal what the editor would prefer not to mention. His presentation is too limited. Yes, labels are used as euphemisms and epithets. This type of propaganda is prevalent at... the New York Times. I have been identifying it for years.

The NY Times often has been appeasement-minded, as it is now in the Arab-Israel conflict. It also practices advocacy journalism, a fact that Mr. Hoyt did not mention. In its advocacy, the paper wields labels to make or break reputations. Thus it calls Israelis who wish to retain more of their national patrimony "extremists," and Arabs who wish to usurp it "moderates." It calls terrorists "militants." It calls terrorists who negotiate for some of war aims, without abandoning their other war aims, "moderates." Then there is the process by which the world that presided over the Holocaust and proposed a Jewish state that the U.S. did not think could defend itself and that Pres. Truman tried to make sure of by embargoing arms shipments to it, and that now presses Israel to cede secure borders to Islamic enemies dedicated to destroying it. That is called "peace process." Topsy-turvy.

Other false or misleadingly used terms are "Palestinian," "occupied," "West Bank," "East Jerusalem," "Saudi peace plan," "honest broker," "friend of Israel," "racist and apartheid," "war crime," "hardliner," "right wing," "protester" for rioter, and "national interest" for ideological, private, or corporate interest.

Mr. Hoyt suggests letting readers evaluate and judge the facts, rather than having somebody else's labels do it for them. Indeed. But that would mean great restraint in writing about the Arab-Israel conflict. The media would have to end the nasty streak that goes beyond radio talk shows. It would have to present full background instead of just enough to elicit sympathy for the Arab side.

For example, after years of suffering terrorism, Israel defended itself from a Jordanian attack on Jerusalem in 1967, ending up in control of Judea and Samaria. The Times usually refers to "the West Bank, which Israel seized in 1967." "Seized" is a strong word connoting aggression rather than self-defense. That limited background omits the fact that Jordan actually had seized Judea-Samaria by outright illegal aggression in 1948. (In those early wars, the Arabs openly vowed genocide against Israelis. They are more diplomatic but no less fervent now.) Trying in vain to annex Judea and Samaria, Jordan substituted the term, "West Bank" for their provincial names, to differentiate them from the eastern part of the kingdom and, like the designation "Palestine," itself, to disassociate them from their Jewish heritage and identity.


Thomas Friedman weighed in on the contretemps between the State Dept. and Israel over building in Jerusalem, on the side of the State Dept. [as usual]. He added, in passing, a piece of the puzzle that earlier reports seem to have missed. According to Friedman, the aides of U.S. emissary Mitchell and PM Netanyahu agreed that if the U.S. got the Palestinian Authority willing to negotiate, Israel would not announce any construction in eastern Jerusalem that would embarrass the P.A. out of negotiating.

[If so, and I believe it, the construction announcement embarrassed Netanyahu as well as the other parties. But questions should be asked why the U.S. demanded that Israel mute its sovereignty, why did Israel agree to that — talk about humiliation — and why does the P.A. make that a condition for negotiation if as Mr. Friedman claims, it wants peace? It is much simpler to negotiate without pre-conditions than to negotiate pre-conditions so as not really to have to negotiate.]

Friedman writes, "The last thing the president needs, at a time when he is facing down Iran and China — not to mention Congress — is to look like America's most dependent ally can push him around." President Obama is not facing down other foreign countries. He pretends to be acting to stop Iran's nuclear arms development, but his allies on the NY Times already are discussing what to do after Iran gets nuclear weapons. Obama objects to some China policies from a position of weakness, and China is facing him down. Obama has been making demands, threats, and denials to Israel, but when Israel acts within its rights, Friedman calls that pushing the U.S. around. Perhaps the U.S. should learn not to be arrogant. Arrogance becomes self-defeating.

Another odd statement by Friedman is, "Israel has already bitten off plenty of the West Bank." Estimates are that Israelis live in 5% of Judea-Samaria. How does Friedman translate 5% into "plenty?"

His suggestion for peace is for Israel to trade land in Israel for land in Judea-Samaria, and gain peace. [How would that gain peace with a foe whose reason for war is the very existence of Israeli sovereignty, as Abbas has intimated? Land-for-peace was tried before. It did not end Muslim-Arab enmity. Why should Israel trade land over which it enjoys sovereignty for land over which Arabs do not and did not have sovereignty? What does Israel owe Arabs who have committed countless acts of aggression against it and murdered thousands of its people?]

Friedman refers to "Arab East Jerusalem." [What is that? There is only "Jerusalem." Why does he call it "Arab?" Perhaps half its residents are Jews. Much of it was built by Jews, the Old City in it has a "Jewish Quarter" and Judaism's holiest site, and the archaeological exhibits below it are almost all of Jewish origin and almost none of Arab origin. The label is for propaganda. Better to stick to official terms.]

Vice-President Biden, whom Friedman calls a friend of Israel, as one supposes he would call himself, said apparently about the construction, "What you are doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq,

Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and endangers regional peace." [Strong wording for a statement not backed up by evidence! Regional peace is endangered by two Islamist notions: (1) The cause of the Arab-Israel wars, Muslim refusal to accept any Jewish sovereignty, independent of what Israel does or how small it is; and (2) Radical Muslim insistence of having a radical caliphate rule the region and world. The U.S. furthers Radical Muslim goals by trying to whittle down Israel to the point at which the Arabs can conquer it and declare a great victory for jihad and make that victory the incentive for moving harder against the U.S.. U.S. appeasement of the Muslim Arabs, which is a form of cowardice not pragmatism, harms U.S. interests.]

Do P.A. leaders Abbas and Fayyad want peace? Friedman states that they "are as genuine and serious about working toward a solution as any Israel can hope to find. He claims they are "working with Israel to prevent terrorism." Friedman claims Hamas has halted attacks on Israel (NY Times, 3/14, wk15).

Friedman is wrong about Hamas. Hamas continues to attack, though less so, lately. It has its own reasons, none of them being a desire for peace. For one thing, it continues to build up its forces, so that when it commits them to combat, they could do more damage.

The P.A. does not work with Israel to prevent terrorism. It does try to preserve itself from another Hamas takeover, but maneuvers to keep loyal terrorists out of prison. Fact is, the IDF has to keep raiding the P.A. to capture terrorists that the P.A. should.

What does Friedman mean, Abbas and Fayyad are as "genuine" about peace as any Israel could find? He is comparing rotten apples with rotten apples. Do they or do they not want peace? If they are the only P.A. leaders who do, there would be no peace. Their continued and extensive honoring of terrorists and retention of a belligerent charter, curriculum, TV, etc., belie the contention that they want peace.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, March 15, 2010.

Please ponder the following exchange:

Eidelberg recommended:

"The key to challenging Obama's hostile attitude toward Israel is for Netanyahu to ask a certain set of exploratory questions of certain members of Obama's cabinet, making sure to mention the names of John Bolton, statements of former members of the US Joint Chiefs, eminent scholars, and references to European events and statements. Questions should of course be respectful, should seek for "clarification," should be precise, unambiguous, forthright, sympathetic without being servile or condescending. This will require not only tact, but expert knowledge and political wisdom."

Here is one reader's response:

"Please give us some examples of the categories of questions to formulate! I would like to practice with my left-leaning friends. Some of them are turning to the right path, and I would like to assist in speeding up this process. As an added horror, even my professional association, NASW, has come out in favor of Obama. NASW has a "political action committee," and when I asked the head of this committee how my professional association could take sides like this, she said, " by supporting Obama, we get money and support for our social action initiatives." I would like to combat this thinking, and start my own political action committee within NASW, as I feel nauseous whenever I see their support of these destructive initiatives. NASW has thousands of social work members in the U.S., and they have been embracing destructive political concepts for far too long, with no one ever speaking up."

Eidelberg answered:

Here is a question which is based on a report from my colleague Tom Carew of Dublin, Ireland:

Sir: Like former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton, we are concerned about America's failure to use military force, or to support Israel's use of military force, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Our concern is magnified by a former British Prime Minister Tony Blair who recently said that if Saddam had been left in power in 2003, the UK and its allies would have "lost our nerve" to act because of evidence indicating Saddam might soon possess weapons of mass destruction. We ask this question mindful of the fact in 1988 Saddam's regime used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians in what, according to Human Rights Watch, amounted to genocide; and that from 1988 to 2003, Saddam's regime murdered at least 400,000 of its own people. This atrocity compares with that of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who, during the Iran-Iraq war, sent tens of thousands of Iranian children to walk across and explode Iraqi mine fields. This being the case, and since sanctions have not worked, shouldn't America and /or Israel use force to stop Iran's nuclear development program? kRelated: Israel's first real response to Goldstone

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Carrie Devorah, March 14, 2010.

Hi All

The Bus 19 project www.bus19project.com is an effort by one man who felt challenged to give dignity to the dead of Egged Bus 19. The Bus had been hauled around America by a retired military chaplin who retired the Bus, without advance notice, to a salvage yard in Maryland, two states away from where he housed it. There were 9 salvage yards in the region, it seems, only one of which was owned by a Jewish man, as I understand. As I understand, salvage left at the yard is usually decimated within a short while of arriving at the yard. Miracle of the Bus is, left without notice to the yard, it survived all day until the owner arrived, seeing the Bus, paled. He knew it was an Israeli Bus. He called his Rabbi. His Rabbi connected the yard owner to the Camp where it sits now with the goal to make an educational awareness center honoring the lost riders.

Adam Edelman is connected to Camp Shoresh. I believe he is a camp parent.

Giving honor to the Bus and the memory of its riders has become a passion to Adam, investing time away from his own career. He has brought on board talented people sharing his vision with their talent.

I thought to share this with you. Adam is fundraising. He figures he needs around $300k to build a home for the bus and its educational center. My contribution is time and being a sister, being an ear. He hasnt asked me or us for money. Just our blessings. I give that willingly.



On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 8:06 PM, wrote:

I thought you all might like to hear the interview I had last week with Walter Bingham at Israel National Radio. Click on the link. My interview is around 5-7 minutes into the show.



Adam Edelman
Bus 19 Project
443-310-8777 (mobile)

Carrie Devorah is an investigative photojournalist based in DC. Former religion editor of "Lifestyles" Magazine, her areas of focus are faith, homeland security and terrorism. Devorah is the sister of Jewish Press columnist Yechezkel Chezi Scotty Goldberg, victim of Egged Bus 19 bombing, 1-29-04. Goldberg was a noted psychologist with expertise in at-risk youth.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 14, 2010.


The U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission endorses a complaint by Debbie Almontaser that New York City pressed her to resign because of bias against her Arab national origin, Muslim religion, and "race". She had been the newly appointed principal of the new, public, Khalil Gibran International Academy that the Mayor and Chancellor had initiated. She may get reinstated, back pay, damages, and legal fees. The court gave the two parties time to work this out. Municipal counsel refuses to reinstate her.

Formerly a teacher, Almontaser was opposed for having what was seen as a Radical Muslim bias. She reputedly was moderate.

One of the culminating accusations was her apparent defense of a student's tee-shirt declaring "Intifada NYC." She was on the board of the organization that rented space to the distributors of the tee-shirts, but disclaimed advance knowledge of the shirts. She explained that "Intifada" means shaking off, but came to mean something else by the Palestinian Arabs. The news account did not specify what "else." The commission found that the New York Post elaborated upon her remarks misleadingly (Andrea Elliot, NY Times, 3/13, A1).

I remember the case as much more complicated and confused than that.

Mayor Bloomberg was criticized as naïve for opening a school to specialize in teaching about Islam, that would be run by non-vetted Muslims more likely to abuse their position to insinuate Muslim values and views than to explain objectively the history and cultures of Islam. New Yorkers feared it would be a radical madrassah.

Almontaser was called moderate, but many Radicals pose as moderate. They get away with that pose because of Americans' inability or politically correct fear to assess this. This American handicap reaches as high as the CIA, FBI, U.S. Army, the prisons, and the President. Radical Muslim leaders have been invited to the White House, asked for advice on how to deal with Radical Islam, allowed to steer prisoners to radical violence, and retained in the military until they attacked fellow soldiers.

Perhaps the New York Post misstated her words, but I had read the NY Times during the controversy. Almontaser failed to condemn the tee-shirt for advocating Palestinian Arab terrorism against Jews, the practical meaning of "Intifada." She either made radical statements or associated with radicals. She seemed to be a poor choice for principal.

The issue was complicated by parents mustering irrelevant arguments into their case against her. They were concerned that the school would attract and encourage a dangerous element of Muslims against the other students.

Ironically, some confusion arose because of the very ignorance about Islam and the American inability to vet job applicants that her school was established to address.

This inability is getting worse, if one considers the many biased teaching materials provided free by Saudi Arabia and curricula that disparage Christianity but inculcate Muslim values and have students try Muslim practices. Instead of a special school, we need a widespread, scholarly course on the political thinking of Islam and its effect upon us. General students need that more than they need details on the Holocaust, for which a few pages of explanation would suffice. We need to find the proper balance between knowledge of history, which has dried up, and knowledge of current movements, which is watered down.


This week, Sharif Mobley of New Jersey, an American born son of Somali immigrants, murdered a Yemeni hospital guard in an attempt to escape. He had corresponded with the same American-born Radical Muslim clergyman in Yemen as had Major Hassan, who murdered 13 Americans at Fort Hood. Mobley had been arrested for going to Yemen with intent to join al-Qaida.

The arrest has had repercussions, coming on the heels of a series of arrests of radicalized Americans plotting against their country. So far, there have not been many such cases, but they are increasing. The plotters' American upbringing heightens the effectiveness of their treason. Now experts believe that poverty and social marginalization affect Muslims here much less than does a perception of U.S. wars in Muslims countries as against Islam (Scott Shane, NY Times, 3/13, A4).

My prior article discussed the need for Americans to learn the effect of Islamic ideologies upon them. This article reinforces the message. Obviously, the U.S. has failed to rally moderate Muslims to contest the ground with the Radical Muslims. It also is obvious that Americans' general lack of education hinders their understanding. Some American Muslims don't know how to reject radical messages on the Internet.

Nor are the messages logical. The U.S. freed Iraq from an imperialistic despot who murdered many thousands of Muslims, and gave Iraq a chance for democratic rule. How is that a war on Islam? Same for other conflicts.

Problem is, Muslims make much less fuss over Muslims killing Muslims, as occurs increasingly in Pakistan. They become outraged when non-believers are involved, even if in self-defense. Nor do they give credit to the U.S. when it saves Muslims, as it did in Bosnia and Kosovo. There seems to be no U.S. strategy for overcoming these misconceptions. The President and Congress worry that Johnny can't read, but can they think?


On page 8 of the Wall St. J., the story is China's muscular reaction to the annual U.S. State Department report on human rights that criticized China's practices and to mild U.S. criticism of China's currency pegging. China responded that after U.S. over-borrowing and over-speculating caused an international financial crisis, while China managed its finances prudently, the U.S. is in a poor position to criticize others. China also criticized the state of human rights in the U.S.. A companion article reported that China called Google "unfriendly and irresponsible" for declining to censor Chinese consumers' use of Internet.

On page 9, Secretary of State Clinton sternly condemned Israel for announcing another step in housing plans for eastern Jerusalem. She claimed it imperils negotiations. She threatened Israel with loosening bilateral ties by not embracing the "peace process" more fervently. She rejected PM Netanyahu's apology to Vice-President Biden as insufficient (3/13).

Biden accepted the apology, but apparently Clinton and Obama want Netanyahu to grovel.

When Israeli policy for national security or ordinary governance displeases the State Dept., which is more interested in bolstering Israel's Arab enemies, the State Dept. asserts that this jeopardizes bilateral relations. This is bullying. Indeed, the State Dept. and President act like bulls in a china shop. Who should apologize to whom?

Speaking of China, it is an old tactic of dictatorships to criticize human rights problems in the U.S. unfairly when the U.S. criticizes their serious problems. However, the U.S. sometimes supports regimes that oppress human rights. This is the very case with U.S. support for the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) and, indirectly, Hamas as well as Hizbullah's other ally, the Lebanese Army.

China criticizes U.S. interference with other countries, making it sound like a principle applicable everywhere. That is simplistic. The U.S. doesn't know when to intervene and when not to. But some governments murder millions of their own people (ask China about that) and endanger other countries. China doesn't want its business with Sudan interrupted by embargoes aimed at stopping genocide in Sudan. China doesn't like in principle U.S. interference in Iran's drive to become a nuclear menace, a menace that many countries, including Russia and other European ones facilitate. But in becoming a menace to the U.S., Iran invites U.S. intervention, for a threat to U.S. national security justifies U.S. counter-measures.

The notion of a peace process with the Arabs is specious. The Arab side has made it clear by charters, ideology, sermons, demands, and actions that it does not want peace but to destroy Israel. The U.S. plays a charade by brokering negotiations whose end results it is trying to coerce Israel into accepting. The end results would include an anti-American, jihadist state.

Why does the U.S. leadership rebuke Israel harshly for soft measures and the P.A. softly if at all for harsh measures? Consistent in this inconsistency, the U.S. reveals bias. This U.S. bias is self-defeating, considering that the U.S. is under siege by the same type of jihadists that the P.A. celebrates. Another reason may be that the P.A. knows to object loudly to everything by Israel and to walk out of negotiations or refuse to enter them. By contrast, Israel is willing to negotiate without pre-conditions, and usually sticks with negotiations.

U.S. bullying of Israel has a probably unintended effect. It has the effect of encouraging the P.A. to be more recalcitrant. When President Obama demanded a building freeze on Jewish housing in eastern Jerusalem, among other places, Abbas refused to negotiate unless that freeze were adopted. Israel refused to go that far. Now Abbas was on record not to negotiate. It took some time for him to relent. Obama caused his own discomfort.

What should Israel do about U.S. bullying? Discontinue U.S. foreign aid. Reject foreign mediation as biased and intrusive. Explain its case to the public and what is incorrect, unfair, and short-sighted about U.S. government demands upon Israel. Emphasize the common U.S. and Israeli interest in defeating international jihad. Protect its national security and develop a Zionist solution for the Territories.

LEFT-ISLAMIST ALLIANCE IN ISRAEL AND ELSEWHERE (Caroline Glick's article here is verbatim, 4 1/2 pages, but masterful and worth it.)

The Red-Green alliance is on the march. On Wednesday, the leftist-controlled European Parliament in Strasbourg passed a resolution endorsing the Goldstone Report. That report, it will be recalled, denies Israel's right to self-defense by alleging that Israel's actions to defend itself from illegal Palestinian aggression during the course of Operation Cast Lead were war crimes.

The resolution did more than accept the Goldstone Report's baseless claims. It sought to silence those who are trying to make the Red portion of the Red-Green alliance pay a price for its abetment of jihad.

In the resolution, the European Parliament "expresses its concern about pressure placed on NGOs involved in the preparation of the Goldstone Report and in follow-up investigations, and calls on authorities on all sides to refrain from any measures restricting the activities of these organizations."

This statement was inserted to defend the EU-supported Israeli organizations — overwhelmingly associated with the far-Left New Israel Fund — that took a lead role in providing Richard Goldstone and his associates with false allegations of illegal actions by IDF soldiers. Those organizations — and the New Israel Fund — have rightly been the subject of scrutiny in Israel after their role in compiling the Goldstone Report was revealed in January by the Israeli student organization Im Tirzu.

Israel is not the only target of the Red-Green alliance. Its operations span the globe. Sometimes, as in the case of the Goldstone Report, the Left leads the charge. Sometimes, as with the Hamas-led missile offensive against Israel that preceded Cast Lead, the jihadists move first.

In general, jihadists are motivated to attack non-Muslims by their religious belief that Islam must dominate the world. And in general, the Left's justification of jihadist aggression stems from its neo-Marxist faith that the liberal nation-state is the root of all evil. Whether the Left recognizes that if successful, its collusion with jihadists will lead to the destruction of human freedom, is subject to debate. But whether or not the Left understands the consequences of its actions, it has played a key role in abetting this goal.

IN NIGERIA on Sunday night, the jihadists led the charge. With the apparent collaboration of the Muslim-dominated Nigerian army, Muslim gangs entered three predominantly Christian villages around the city of Jos and killed up to 500 innocent civilians, including children, with machetes, axes, and daggers.

According to eyewitness reports, some victims were scalped and many were raped. Most had their hands and feet chopped off. Infants and children were among the butchered.

The massacre was premeditated. According to government spokesmen, Muslim residents were tipped off two days prior to the attack. To ensure their victims were Christians, the jihadists addressed them in Fulani, the language spoken by local Muslims. If the victims responded in Fulani they were saved. Otherwise they were hacked to death.

Sunday's massacre could have been expected to lead the news worldwide. But it didn't. Indeed, it was barely noted.

That scant coverage the barbarous events received was itself plagued by obscurity and vagueness. Commentators and reporters alike hid the identities of the aggressors and the victims, characterizing the jihadist butchery as "sectarian violence."

They also sought to obfuscate its significance, claiming that the Muslim gangs decapitated infants in response to tribal property disputes.

Jessica Olien at The Atlantic not only made these claims, but brushed off the dimensions of the atrocity, writing, "It's worth noting that police have confirmed only 109 dead."

After minimizing the death toll, Olien turned her literary daggers on the victims, claiming that they had it coming. As she put it, "It's hard not to compare the weekend's attack with one in January in which 150 people from the same Muslim community responsible for Sunday's attack were brutally killed. The attack on March 7th drew considerably more international attention the previous incident."

Ah, so unfair. The over-reported atrocity unfairly portrays murdered Christians as victims. But Olien knows better. The Muslims were simply retaliating for the attacks they suffered.

Sadly for Olien and her erudite justification of barbarism, it is far from clear that the victims of January's violence were Muslims. Writing in the London Times on Thursday, British Baroness Caroline Cox claimed that the primary victims of January's slaughter were Christians, not Muslims.

According to Cox, eyewitnesses to the events in January "indicated that the killings began when Muslim youths attacked Christians on a Sunday morning on their way to church. Muslims were also killed as those under attack began to fight back."

Cox continued that Sunday's attack followed a now familiar pattern. Attacks "are initiated by well-armed Muslim extremists, chanting militant slogans, attacking and killing Christian and other non-Muslim citizens and destroying homes and places of worship.

"In the early stages of the attack, the Muslim militants take corpses to mosques, where they are photographed and released to the media, creating the impression that these are Muslim victims."

The international media are only too willing to accept at face value these false accusations of Muslim victimization at the hands of their actual victims. And so are their leftist comrades in international governing circles.

In the wake of Sunday's massacre, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon both issued statements making no distinction whatsoever between the victims and the aggressors. Both called for "both sides" to act with "restraint."

In the Left's apparent willingness to hide the nature of January's attacks and then underplay Sunday's massacre, we have an example of Leftist facilitation of jihadist violence. In Nigeria, of course, the jihadists are the main actors and the Left is merely their helpmate.

IN ISRAEL, the roles are generally reversed. Here it is the Left that leads the jihadists by the hand. Take the Left's campaign against Jewish property rights in Jerusalem. In the Sheikh Jarrah/Shimon Hatzadik neighborhood, buildings owned by Jews were seized by Jordan in 1948 after its conquest of the city. For the past decade Jewish property owners have been working through the courts to assert their rights to their buildings and remove the Arab squatters who took them over.

Court after court upheld their rights to their property. And, indeed, more than a decade ago, the squatters reached a settlement in which they acknowledged the owners' property rights and the owners agreed to let the squatters stay so long as they paid rent. But when the squatters stopped paying rent, the Left pushed them to refuse to vacate the premises and to try to re-litigate the old settlement. Finally, the case made it to the Supreme Court, which also recognized the rights of the Jewish owners and ordered the police to enforce its ruling and remove the illegal squatters.

The police removed the squatters last month and within hours, Jewish residents moved in, in accordance with an agreement with the buildings' lawful owners. Since they moved in, the Jews have been under constant attack from their Arab neighbors. They have been beaten and threatened with murder.

In the meantime, the Left has turned the case of the illegal Arab squatters into a cause celebre. Last week, thousands of leftists staged an anti-Semitic demonstration outside the compound, demanding that the Jews be removed from their homes. The argument, of course, is that allowing Jews to exercise their legal property rights by peacefully residing in a predominantly Arab neighborhood is an unacceptable "provocation." The Arab squatters attempting to steal the property, on the other hand, are "victims."

Rather than characterize the protesters as anti-Semites who are stoking violence against innocent Jews for their crime of lawfully living where they choose, the local and international media have described the demonstrators as "peace activists" and "human rights activists."

For turning reality on its head and championing the cause of jihadists against the human rights of their victims, these leftist demonstrators are lionized by their comrades in the media and in the chanceries of the Western world. The State Department said it was "unacceptable" that Jews moved into their homes.

So, too, the UN raced to accept the Left's claim that human rights demand the denial of Jews' property rights due to their ethnicity. Its peace process boss Richard Miron said, "I deeply deplore the totally unacceptable actions by Israel in which Israeli security forces evicted Palestinian refugee families... to allow settlers to take possession of their properties."

It is a depressing commentary on our times that spokesmen of democracies and supposed champions of human rights are willing to state publicly that granting Jews the equal protection of the law is an unacceptable imposition on their bigoted neighbors. But the notion that Jews have an equal right to buy and own property in areas of Jerusalem from which they were illegally ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians in 1948 is now a great cause of the Left. And one can only assume that the jihadists will soon make their move — to the gratification of their leftist comrades — against the innocent Jews of Jerusalem.

THIS BRINGS us to the events surrounding US Vice President Joseph Biden's visit to Israel this week. On the first day of his visit, as a matter of routine governance, the Jerusalem Planning and Building Committee approved plans to build 1,600 housing units in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood. Ramat Shlomo is a neighborhood with more than 20,000 residents located between the even more populous Ramot and Sanhedriya neighborhoods. From an Israeli perspective, it is just as uncontroversial as Yad Eliahu in Tel Aviv or Hadar in Haifa.

But not from a Red perspective. Just moments after the decision was announced, the Left used it as proof of Israeli venality. For approving the construction of new homes in its capital, the government was condemned again and again. The Palestinians and the Arab League jumped on the bandwagon. And now, owing to the Left's anti-Israel onslaught, anyone murdered in Jerusalem — or anywhere else for that matter — will be dismissed as a product of fully justified Muslim anger.

Observing the Leftist charge, led in this case by the frothing-at-the-mouth Israeli media, Biden moved swiftly. The man who came to Israel on a charm offensive could no longer hide the truth about where the Obama administration's true sympathies lay. After declaring his undying love and fidelity to Israel just hours before, Biden switched gears and condemned Israel for "undermining" prospects for peace.

On Wednesday morning as he referred to his condemnation of Israel's decision to build homes in its capital, Biden said, "Sometimes only a friend can deliver the hardest truth."

And at least in this case, he is correct.

And so, in the spirit of that sentiment, it must be said: When those who purport to support peace and human rights join forces with the Red-Green alliance, what they are actually supporting is bigotry, violence, murder and, ultimately, the destruction of human freedom. Whether the Left recognizes the significance of its actions or not, it is time that it be held as accountable for its defense of jihad as the jihadists are for carrying it out (IMRA, 3/12).


UNRWA distribution in Jenin (A.P./Mohammed Ballas)

Last year, the U.S. donated $267 million to UNRWA. UNRWA provides emergency food assistance, critical health, education, job creation programs and humanitarian services to 4.7 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza. The U.S. donates the most. UNRWA costs keep rising (IMRA, 3/10).

By now most of the beneficiaries are descendants of refugees, not refugees. The UN singled out the Arab refugees for special treatment. Whereas the regular UN refugee agency helps refugees assimilate and become independent, UNRWA helps them remain dependent. They thus become cannon fodder for Intifada.

Then are they really beneficiaries? Is this preservation of misery and bellicosity really a humanitarian enterprise? A wise use of U.S. funds?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Cpocerl, March 14, 2010.

This is DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 13, 2010, http://www.debka.com/article/8648/


PIX Ehud Barak meets Robert Gates in D.C.

Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu convened his inner cabinet Saturday night, March 12, to discuss the spiraling crisis with Washington and his first response.

debkafile's military and Washington sources report: The Obama administration is considering withholding from Israel military items urgently needed in case of a flare-up of hostilities with Iran. This would further ratchet up the mounting row over Israel's decision to build another 1,600 homes in E. Jerusalem. The requests were filed by defense minister Ehud Barak as recently as Feb. 26, when he visited Washington and met defense secretary Robert Gates and secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

In an exceptionally harsh phone call to Netanyahu Friday, March, Clinton herself hinted at this possibility while administering a dressing-down on the East Jerusalem housing decision and its announcement during Vice president Joe Biden's visit.

Reporting on that phone call, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley disclosed: "The secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States' strong commitment to Israel's security."

Washington correspondents interpreted this as a threat to withhold items vital for Israel's security unless the prime minister reversed that decision (which Palestinians now demand as the precondition for resuming peace talks).

Our military sources report that the Barak arms list is tailored to a potential four-front offensive against Israel launched by Iran and its allies. It includes systems needed by the Israeli Air Force, certain types of missiles and advanced electronic equipment. During his last visit, the defense minster complained the list had been pending in Washington for more than three months and the sands for a possible conflict were running out fast. He stressed that it was essential for these items to reach Israel before a flare-up occurred. The urgency was such that he suggested that if they could not be supplied to Israel at short notice, they should at least be held ready meanwhile in the emergency stores of the US bases in Israel's Negev.

Gates promised Barak to study the list and let him have his answer in the coming days, but none has so far been received.

Some circles in the United States and many in Israel say the Obama administration is blowing the crisis up with deliberate intent. American-Jewish criticism was led Saturday night by the Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman, who issued this statement: "We are shocked and stunned at the Administration's tone and public dressing down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem," he said. "One can only wonder how far the US is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians."

Defense sources in Washington reported Saturday the view that the Obama administration, which has never cultivated warm relations with the Netanyahu government, has seized on the Jerusalem housing spat as a device for restraining Israel from attacking Iran's nuclear sites, a step which the White House strenuously opposes.

Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Cpocerl, March 14, 2010.


Spreading Sharia Gets U.S. Approval

This is from the lastcrusade.org website


In her annual report on human rights, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton takes to task white Europeans for manifesting increased discrimination against Muslims.

Mrs. Clinton and her staff denounce not only Switzerland for its ban on the construction of new minarets but also the restrictions on wearing burqas and head scarves in France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

The report turns a harsh eye on the Netherlands, where Muslims number about 850,000, and criticizes the insensitive Dutch Prosecutor's Office for dismissing complaints over the dissemination of a series of controversial cartoons, including those of a Danish artist depicting the Prophet Mohammed, and determining that the cartoons were neither offensive to Muslims as a group nor the cause of discrimination against Islam.

The contents of the report, which have failed to capture widespread national attention, also decry the authorities in Denmark for continuing to provide protection to Kurt Westergaard.

This criticism has caused some political analysts, including Edward Hopkins, to wonder if Mrs. Clinton and the State Department are calling upon the Danes to allow the irate Muslims, who assassinated Theo Van Gogh, to behead Mr. Westergaard.

Other pronouncements in the report are equally provocative.

Mrs. Clinton and the drafters of the report censor the Austrian Education Ministry for refusing to recognize the Alevi association — reportedly a group comprised of Islamic militants — as either a religious society or a religious community on the grounds that the state already officially recognizes one Muslim group: the Islamic Belief Community.

They further condemn the United Kingdom for its "Terrorism Act," which imposes a range of restrictions on individuals suspected of terrorism-related activities.

"Discrimination against Muslims," the report proclaims, "is an increasing concern."

The report has little to say about the expulsion and persecution of Christians in Iran; the genital mutilation of women and children in Somalia and other Muslim countries, and virulent anti-Christian and Jewish rhetoric in mosques within Europe and throughout the world.

Nor did the report address the realization that every conflict throughout the world, from Chechnya to China, from Indonesia to India, from Afghanistan to Argentina, from Somalia to the Sudan, and from the Balkans to the Philippines, involves a manifestation of Islam.

Throughout her career, Mrs. Clinton has been an ardent admirer and defender of Islam. On one occasion, she praised Islam for its "universal values — love of family and community, mutual respect, education, and the deepest yearning of all — to live in peace — values that can strengthen us as people and strengthen the United States as a nation."

On October 3. 2009, the Secretary of State visited the Igbad Memorial in Pakistan, where, wearing a hijab, she joined with the imam and the Muslim dignitaries in Islamic prayer. The service included the Surah al-Ikhlas, which Mrs. Clinton recited. This surah contains the following four ayahs:

1. Say He is Allah, the One clear of all partners and similars.
2. Allah is the One needed by all and He needs none.
3. Allah does not beget children and He is not begotten.
4. And, there is none, in any way, similar to Him.


Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, March 14, 2010.

This article appeared March 12, 2010 in the www.washingtonpost.com, entitled "CIA drone attacks produce America's own unlawful combatants." It was written by Gary Solis, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center and the author of "The Law of Armed Conflict."


In our current armed conflicts, there are two U.S. drone offensives. One is conducted by our armed forces, the other by the CIA. Every day, CIA agents and CIA contractors arm and pilot armed unmanned drones over combat zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including Pakistani tribal areas, to search out and kill Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters. In terms of international armed conflict, those CIA agents are, unlike their military counterparts but like the fighters they target, unlawful combatants. No less than their insurgent targets, they are fighters without uniforms or insignia, directly participating in hostilities, employing armed force contrary to the laws and customs of war. Even if they are sitting in Langley, the CIA pilots are civilians violating the requirement of distinction, a core concept of armed conflict, as they directly participate in hostilities.

Before the 1863 Lieber Code condemned civilian participation in combat, it was contrary to customary law. Today, civilian participation in combat is still prohibited by two 1977 protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Although the United States has not ratified the protocols, we consider the prohibition to be customary law, binding on all nations. Whether in international or non-international armed conflict, we kill terrorists who take a direct part in hostilities because their doing so negates their protection as civilians and renders them lawful targets. If captured, the unlawful acts committed during their direct participation makes them subject to prosecution in civilian courts or military tribunals. They are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status.

If the CIA civilian personnel recently killed by a suicide bomber in Khost, Afghanistan, were directly involved in supplying targeting data, arming or flying drones in the combat zone, they were lawful targets of the enemy, although the enemy himself was not a lawful combatant. It makes no difference that CIA civilians are employed by, or in the service of, the U.S. government or its armed forces. They are civilians; they wear no distinguishing uniform or sign, and if they input target data or pilot armed drones in the combat zone, they directly participate in hostilities — which means they may be lawfully targeted.

Moreover, CIA civilian personnel who repeatedly and directly participate in hostilities may have what recent guidance from the International Committee of the Red Cross terms "a continuous combat function." That status, the ICRC guidance says, makes them legitimate targets whenever and wherever they may be found, including Langley. While the guidance speaks in terms of non-state actors, there is no reason why the same is not true of civilian agents of state actors such as the United States.

It is, of course, hardly likely that a Taliban or al-Qaeda bomber or sniper could operate in Northern Virginia. (In 1993, a Pakistani citizen illegally in the United States shot and killed two CIA employees en route to the agency's headquarters. He was not, however, affiliated with any political or religious group.)

And while the prosecution of CIA personnel is certainly not suggested, one wonders whether CIA civilians who are associated with armed drones appreciate their position in the law of armed conflict. Their superiors surely do.

In the history of the world, no tyranny has ever voluntarily relinquished power or been replaced by peaceful means.

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 Roberta Dzubow, March 14, 2010.

This is the petition from http://usacbi.wordpress.com/ entitled "Endorse Our Call to Boycott." It was started at Birzeit University. Ironically, there had never been a college in the Territories, until Israel undertook developing one, to better the lives of the Arabs living there. How do you say Thanks in Arabic?

ARE YOU A DONOR TO ISRAELI UNIVERSITIES? Learn about what is happening on Israeli campuses. Be informed about what is being done with your gifts and generosity. Bear in mind and speak about anti-Israel Israeli academics when you are in touch with University officials.
Israel Academia Monitor, P.O. Box 920 Kfar Shmaryahu 46910, Israel

Responding to the call of Palestinian civil society to join the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement against Israel, we are a U.S. campaign focused specifically on a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions, as delineated by PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel). If you wish to endorse this call for an academic and cultural boycott, please email us at: uscom4acbi [at] gmail.com. PACBI writes:

"In light of Israel's persistent violations of international law, and Given that, since 1948, hundreds of UN resolutions have condemned Israel's colonial and discriminatory policies as illegal and called for immediate, adequate and effective remedies, and Given that all forms of international intervention and peace-making have until now failed to convince or force Israel to comply with humanitarian law, to respect fundamental human rights and to end its occupation and oppression of the people of Palestine, and In view of the fact that people of conscience in the international community have historically shouldered the moral responsibility to fight injustice, as exemplified in the struggle to abolish apartheid in South Africa through diverse forms of boycott, divestment and sanctions;

Inspired by the struggle of South Africans against apartheid and in the spirit of international solidarity, moral consistency and resistance to injustice and oppression, We, representatives of Palestinian civil society, call upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era. We appeal to you to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel. We also invite conscientious Israelis to support this Call, for the sake of justice and genuine peace.

These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194." [For more information: http://www.pacbi.org/campaign_statement.htm]

PACBI and the entire movement for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (representing the overwhelming majority among Palestinian civil society parties, unions, networks and organizations) emphasize fundamental Palestinian rights, sanctioned by international law and universal human rights principles that ought to be respected by Israel to end the boycott. We struggle to achieve an end to Israel's three-tiered injustice and oppression: 1) occupation and colonization in the 1967-occupied Palestinian territory; 2) denial of the refugees' rights, paramount among which is their right to return to their homes of origin, as per UN General Assembly Resolution 194; and 3) the system of racial discrimination, or apartheid, to which Palestinian (all non-Jewish) citizens of Israel are subjected to.

The principles guiding the PACBI campaign and the three goals outlined above are also points of unity for the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USCACBI). We believe it is time to take a public, principled stance in support of equality, self-determination, human rights (including the right to education), and true democracy, especially in light of the censorship and silencing of the Palestine question in U.S. universities, as well as U.S. society at large. There can be no academic freedom in Israel/Palestine unless all academics are free and all students are free to pursue their academic desires.

If you are committed to these principles of unity, and wish to work on a campaign of boycotting academic and cultural institutions guided by this approach, please join our campaign. [See information below.]

Urgent Appeal:

We are also responding to the Open Letter to International Academic Institutions from the Right to Education campaign at Birzeit University in Palestine (January 17, 2009), calling on the international academic community, unions and students "to show support and solidarity with the people of Gaza by calling upon their respective governments to impose immediate boycott, divestment and sanctions against the state of Israel."

Gaza is but the latest incident in a series of ongoing massacres — from Deir Yassin (1948) to Kafr Kassim (1956) to Jenin (2002) to the wars on Lebanon (from 1980s to 2006) — which demonstrate a pattern of violence by a state which will not end its violations of international law without international pressure. As academics working in the U.S., we wish to focus on campaigns in our universities and in institutions of higher education to advocate for compliance with the academic and cultural boycott, a movement that is growing internationally across all segments of global civil society.

This call for an academic and cultural boycott parallels the call in the non-academic world for divestment, boycott and sanctions by trade unions, churches, and other civil society organizations in countries such as the United States, Canada, Italy, Ireland, Norway, the United Kingdom, Brazil, South Africa, and New Zealand.


As educators and scholars of conscience in the United States, we fully support this call. We urge our colleagues, nationally, regionally, and internationally, to stand up against Israel's ongoing scholasticide and to support the non-violent call for academic boycott, disinvestment, and sanctions.

If you wish to endorse this call for an academic and cultural boycott, please email us at: uscom4acbi [at] gmail.com. If you are willing to indicate your support publicly, please send us your name and institutional/organizational affiliation (for identification purposes only).

For more information on actions suggested by the boycott campaign, please join one of the discussion groups linked on the top right-hand corner of this website.

Actions you can take:

Since Israeli academic institutions (mostly state-controlled) and the vast majority of Israeli intellectuals and academics have either contributed directly to maintaining, defending or otherwise justifying the above forms of oppression, or have been complicit in them through their silence, we call upon our colleagues to comprehensively and consistently boycott all Israeli academic and cultural institutions as a contribution to the struggle to end Israel's occupation, colonization and system of apartheid, by engaging in the following actions. We aim at the full implementation of all these steps. However, recognizing that different actions may be feasible and appropriate under the many different academic and political circumstances that pertain in US institutions, we urge our colleagues to undertake as many of the following initiatives as possible:

1. Support Palestinian academic and cultural institutions directly without requiring them to partner with Israeli counterparts as an explicit or implicit condition for such support;

2. Encourage your university and college administrations to institute funding for scholarship sand fellowships for Palestinian students;

3. Request your administration/president to issue a public statement censuring Israeli destruction of and interference with Palestinian schools and universities, archives and research centers, both in Gaza and throughout occupied Palestine.

4. Work toward the condemnation of Israeli policies by pressing for resolutions to be adopted by academic, professional and cultural associations and organizations;

5. Organize teach-ins or similar events with campus and community organizations at which the campaign for the economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel can be fully and openly discussed;

6. Refrain from participation in any form of academic and cultural cooperation, collaboration or joint projects with Israeli institutions;

7. Advocate a comprehensive boycott of Israeli institutions at the national and international levels, including suspension of all forms of funding and subsidies to these institutions;

8. Promote divestment and disinvestment from Israel by academic institutions, and place pressure on your own institution to suspend all ties with Israeli universities, including collaborative projects, study abroad, funding and exchanges.


From: Date: 14 March 2010 11:43 Subject: List of Israeli academics participating the "U.S. Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel" http://usacbi.wordpress.com/

U.S. Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel
Endorsers http://usacbi.wordpress.com/endorsers/
Endorsements from Colleagues at American Institutions:
Note: institutional names are for identification purposes only.

1. Elizabeth Aaronsohn, Central Connecticut State University
2. Elmaz Abinader, Mills College*
3. Rabab Abdulhadi, San Francisco State University***
4. Mohammed Abed, California State University, Los Angeles
5. Thomas Abowd, Colby College
6. Khaled Abou El Fadl, University of California, Los Angeles, Law School
7. Feras Abou-Galala, University of California, Riverside***
8. Matthew Abraham, DePaul University
9. Wahiba Abu-Ras, Adelphi University
10. Fawzia Afzal-Khan, Montclair State University
11. Roberta Ahlquist, San Jose State University
12. Andrew Aisenberg, Scripps College
13. Kazem Alamdari, California State University, Northridge
14. Norma Alarcon, University of California, Berkeley
15. Charlotte Albrecht, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
16. Lisa Albrecht, University of Minnesota
17. Anthony Alessandrini, City University of New York, Kingsborough
18. Hamid Algar, University of California, Berkeley
19. Ammiel Alkalay, Queens College/ CUNY Graduate Center
20. Sama Alshaibi, University of Arizona
21. Naser Alsharif, Creighton University
22. Akram Alshawabkeh, Northeastern University
23. Evelyn Alsultany, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
24. Floyd Anderson, State University of New York, Brockport
25. Ibrahim Aoude, University of Hawai'i
26. Anjali Arondekar, University of California, Santa Cruz
27. Naseer Aruri, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth
28. Bill Ayers, University of Illinois, Chicago
29. Barbara Nimri Aziz, anthropologist and independent scholar, Pacifica Radio
30. Alice Bach, Case Western Reserve University
31. Paola Bacchetta, University of California, Berkeley
32. Karran Baird-Olson, California State University, Northridge
33. Raymond William Baker, Trinity College, Hartford CT
34. Ian Barnard, California State University, Northridge
35. Ryvka Bar Zohar, New York University
36. Elisabeth Bass, George Washington University
37. Anis Bawarshi, University of Washington
38. Rosalyn Baxandall, SUNY Old Westbury
39. Moustafa Bayoumi, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
40. Nagwa Bekir, California State University Northridge
41. Joan Berezin, Berkeley City College
42. Gerald Bergevin, Northeaster University
43. Lincoln Bergman, University of California, Berkeley
44. Tithi Bhattacharya, Purdue University
45. Alisa Bierria, University of California, Berkeley
46. Jack Bishop, University of California, Los Angeles
47. John D. Blanco, University of California, San Diego
48. Dreama Blankenbeckler, Antioch University Seattle*
49. Hagit Borer, University of Southern California
50. Eileen Boris, University of California, Santa Barbara
51. Purnima Bose, Indiana University
52. Mary Pat Brady, Cornell University
53. Bruce Braun, University of Minnesota
54. Gray Brechin, University of California, Berkeley
55. Timothy Brennan, University of Minnesota
56. Steve Breyman, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
57. Robert Brooks, Cornell University
58. Anna Brown, Saint Peter's College
59. Jayna Brown, University of California, Riverside
60. Judith Butler, University of California, Berkeley
61. Bill Buttrey, University of Southern California
62. Eduardo Cadava, Princeton University
63. George Caffentzis, University of Southern Maine
64. Michael Cahn, University of California, Los Angeles
65. Catherine Caldwell-Harris, Boston University
66. Steve Cameron, North Iowa Area Community College
67. Scott Campbell, New York University
68. Corey N. Capers, University of Illinois, Chicago
69. Micha Cardenas, University of California, San Diego
70. Berenice A. Carroll, Purdue University
71. Courtney Carter, Hood College
72. Rand Carter, Hamilton College
73. Margaret Cerullo, Hampshire College
74. Sarika Chandra, Wayne State University
75. Shefali Chandra, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign
76. Piya Chatterjee, University of California, Riverside
77. Jolie Chea, University of Southern California
78. Michele Cheung, University of Southern Maine
79. Dennis Childs, University of California, San Diego
80. Mark S. Clinton, Holyoke Community College
81. Marjorie Cohn, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
82. Peter Collas, California State University, Northridge
83. Dayan Colin, Vanderbilt University
84. Michael J. Coyle, California State University, Chico
85. Ofelia Ortiz Cuevas, University of California, Riverside
86. Patricia Cull, Mission Campus, City College, San Francisco
87. Bouthaina Shbib Dabaja, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center
88. Hamid Dabashi, Columbia University**
89. Lawrence Davidson, West Chester University**
90. Ken De Bevois, University of Oregon
91. Chris Decker, Buffalo University
92. Nicholas De Genova, Columbia University
93. Lara Deeb, University of California Irvine***
94. Natalia Deeb-Sossa, University of California, Davis
95. Benjamin Dharlingue, University of California, Davis
96. Vicente M. Diaz, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
97. Paula DiMarco, California State University, Northridge
98. Alireza Doostdar, Harvard University
99. Maria R D'Orsogna, California State University, Northridge
100. Ann Douglas, Columbia University
101. Eleanor Doumato, Brown University
102. Ronald Edwards, DePaul University
103. David Eggenschwiler, University of Southern California
104. Amy Elder, University of Cincinnati
105. Charles Elerick, The University of Texas at El Paso
106. Nada Elia, Antioch University, Seattle***
107. Martha Escobar, University of California, San Diego
108. Nava EtShalom, University of Michigan*
109. Maureen E. Ruprecht Fadem, Kingsborough CC and Hunter College
110. Joseph Farbrook, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
111. James Faris, University of Connecticut
112. Grant Farred, Cornell University
113. Sasan Fayazmanesh, California State University, Fresno
114. Kevin Fellezs, University of California, Merced
115. Nina Felshin, Wesleyan University
116. Margaret Ferguson, University of California, Davis
117. Lucy Ferriss, Trinity College
118. James Fetzer, University of Minnesota, Duluth
119. Raya Fidel, University of Washington
120. Allan Fisher, City College of San Francisco
121. Ana Fisher, City College of San Francisco
122. Chris Fitter, Rutgers University, Camden
123. Manzar Foorohar, California Polytechnic State University***
124. Paul Foote, California State University, Fullerton
125. John Foran, University of California, Santa Barbara
126. Dennis Fox, University of Illinois, Springfield
127. Robert Frager, Institute of Transpersonal Psychology
128. Cynthia Franklin, University of Hawai'i
129. H. Bruce Franklin, Rutgers University — Newark
130. Carla Freccero, University of California, Santa Cruz
131. Benjamin Frymer, California State University, Sonoma
132. Diane Fujino, University of California, Santa Barbara
133. Abigail A. Fuller, Manchester College
134. Nancy Gallagher, University of California, Santa Barbara
135. Keya Ganguly, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
136. George Garcia, University of Michigan
137. Irene Gendzier, Boston University
138. Jess Ghannam, University of California, San Francisco***
139. Bishnupriya Ghosh, University of California, Santa Barbara
140. Ayesha E. Gill, UCLA
141. Terri Ginsberg, Manhattanville College
142. Him Glover, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale
143. Sherna Berger Gluck, California State University Long Beach***
144. Mishuana Goeman, Dartmouth College
145. Macarena Gomez-Barris, University of Southern California
146. Marta Gonzales, California State University, Northridge
147. Julia Good Fox, Haskell Indian Nations University
148. Avery Gordon, University of California, Santa Barbara
149. Arthur Grant, SUNY Downstate Medical Center
150. Kiana Green, University of Southern California
151. Susan Greene, San Francisco Art Institute
152. Inderpal Grewal, University of California, Berkeley
153. Andrew Paul Gutierrez, University of California, Berkeley
154. Marilyn Hacker, City University of New York*/**
155. Christian Haesemeyer, University of California, Los Angeles
156. Elaine Haglund, California State University, Long Beach
157. Elaine Hagopian, Simmons College
158. John Halaka, University of San Diego
159. Sondra Hale, University of California, Los Angeles***
160. Dorcas Haller, Community College of Rhode Island
161. Leila Hamdan, George Mason University
162. Sora Han, University of California, Irvine
163. Barbara Harlow, University of Texas, Austin
164. George Hartley, Ohio University
165. John Hartung, State University of New York, Brooklyn
166. Mahamood Hassan, California State University, Fullerton
167. Salah D. Hassan, Michigan State University
168. Frances Hasso, Oberlin College
169. Geraldine Haynes, University of Washington
170. Nicholas Heer, University of Washington, Seattle
171. Lyn Hejinian, University of California, Berkeley
172. Lynette Henderson, California State University, Northridge
173. Glenn Hendler, Fordham University
174. Edward S. Herman, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania**
175. Sami Hermez, Princeton University
176. Gerise Herndon, Nebraska Wesleyan University
177. Annie Higgins, Wayne State University
178. Chris Highley, Ohio State University
179. Musa al-Hindi, Independent Scholar
180. Janet Holmes, Boise State University*
181. Jim Holstun, State University of New York, Buffalo
182. Giovanni Hortua, California State University, Long Beach
183. Nubar Hovsepian, Chapman University
184. LeAnne Howe, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign
185. Sally Howell, University of Michigan, Dearborn
186. Mary Husain, California State University, Fresno
187. Azfar Hussein, Oklahoma State University
188. Ginna Husting, Boise State University
189. Mahmood Ibrahim, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
190. Noel Ignatiev, Massachusets College of Art and Design
191. Ibrahim Imam, University of Louisville
192. Foad Izadi, Louisiana State University
193. Pranav Jani, Ohio State University
194. Amira Jarmakani, Georgia State University
195. Robert Jensen, University of Texas, Austin
196. Kenneth Johnson, Pennsylvania State University, Abington
197. Brian Johnston, Carnegie Mellon University
198. Pierre Joris, State University of New York, Albany
199. Donna Joss, Worcester State College
200. Mohja Kahf, University of Arkansas*
201. Rhoda Kanaaneh, New York University
202. Ronak K. Kapadia, New York University
203. Tomis Kapitan, Northern Illinois University
204. Amy Kaplan, University of Pennsylvania
205. Carolyn Karcher, Temple University (emerita)
206. Susan Katz, University of San Francisco
207. Walda Katz-Fishman, Howard University
208. J. Ke-haulani Kauanui, Wesleyan University**
209. Joseph Keith, Binghamton University
210. James Kellenberger, California State University, Northridge
211. Robin D.G. Kelley, University of Southern California**
212. Assaf Kfoury, Boston University
213. Issam Khalidi, Independent Scholar
214. Andrea Khalil, Queens College, City University of New York
215. Sang Hea Kil, San José State University
216. Jodi Kim, University of California, Riverside
217. Kathleen Kinawy, University of Southern Maine
218. Laurie King, independent scholar
219. Laurence Kirby, City University of New York
220. David Klein, California State University, Northridge***
221. Lisa Maya Knauer, University of Massachusets, Dartmouth
222. Susan Kneedler, independent scholar
223. Harold Knight, Southern Methodist University
224. Yael Korin, University of California, Los Angeles
225. Dennis Kortheuer, California State University, Long Beach***
226. Eiko Kosasa, Leeward Community College, Pearl City, Hawai'i
227. Joel Kovel, Independent Scholar
228. Kevin Kumashiro, University of Illinois at Chicago
229. Felix Salvador Kury, San Francisco State University
230. Mark Lance, Georgetown University
231. Werner Lange, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
232. Amanda Lashaw, University of California, Davis
233. Paul Lauter, Trinity College
234. Henrike Lehnguth, University of Maryland
235. Priscilla Leiva, University of Southern California
236. Renee Levant, Fort Hays State University
237. Peter Linebaugh, University of Toledo
238. David Lloyd, University of Southern California***
239. Ania Loomba, University of Pennsylvania
240. Claudia Garriga Lopez, New York University
241. Eric Lott, University of Virginia
242. Eileen Lundy, University of Texas, Austin
243. Georgette Loup, University of New Orleans
244. Jennifer Lowenstein, University of Wisconsin, Madison
245. Alex Lubin, University of New Mexico
246. Barry Lumsden, Texas A&M University, Commerce
247. Laura E. Lyons, University of Hawai'i
248. Paul Lyons, University of Hawai'i
249. Graham MacPhee, West Chester University
250. Shireen Mahdavi, University of Utah
251. Sunaina Maira, University of California, Davis***
252. Saree Makdisi, UCLA
253. Sana Makhoul, Evergreen Valley College and De Anza College
254. Harriet Malinowitz, Long Island University
255. Ahmad Malkawi, University of Kentucky
256. Nabil Marshood, Hudson County Community College
257. Joseph Massad, Columbia University
258. Khaled Mattawa, University of Michigan*
259. Todd May, Clemson University
260. Mike Mazon, Woodbury University
261. Ali Mazrui, State University of New York, Binghamton
262. Janet Ellis McAdams, Kenyon College*
263. Justine McCabe, Independent Scholar
264. Bryan McCann, University of Texas, Austin
265. Kate McCullough, Cornell University
266. Daniel McGowan, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
267. Jodi Melamed, Marquette University
268. Jad Melki, University of Maryland
269. Martin Melkonian, Hofstra University
270. Targol Mesbah, California Institute of Integral Studies
271. Wiliam Messing, University of Minnesota
272. Gregory Meyerson, North Carolina A and T University
273. Frann Michel, Willamette University
274. Ali Mili, New Jersey Institute of Technology
275. Glen Mimura, University of California, Irvine
276. Yong Soon Min, University of California, Irvine
277. Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Syracuse University
278. Kelvin Monroe, Metropolitan State University, Saint Paul, MN
279. Theresa Montano, California State University, Northridge
280. Manijeh Moradian, New York University
281. Jessica Morris, University of Louisville
282. Fred Moten, Duke University
283. Fouad Moughrabi, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga
284. Aamir Mufti, University of California, Los Angeles
285. Ahlam Muhtaseb, California State University, San Bernardino
286. Bill Mullen, Purdue University
287. Carlos Munoz, Jr., University of California, Berkeley
288. Donna Murdock, University of the South
289. Mara Naaman, Williams College
290. Nadine Naber, University of Michigan
291. Deborah Al-Najjar, Univ of Southern California
292. Asma Al-Naser, University of Pennsylvania
293. Sionne Neely, University of Southern California
294. David O'Connell, Georgia State University
295. Laura O'Connor, University of California, Irvine
296. Nikitah Okembe-RA Imanii, James Madison University
297. Gary Y. Okihiro, Columbia University
298. Daniel Olmos, University of California, Santa Barbara
299. Jennifer Olmsted, Drew University
300. Judy Olson, California State University, Los Angeles
301. Martin Orr, Boise State University
302. Rupal Oza, Hunter College, CUNY
303. Sirena Pellarolo, California State University, Northridge
304. David Naguib Pellow, University of Minnesota
305. Marina Perez de Mendiola, Scripps College
306. Issa Peters, Thunderbird School of Management
307. James Petras, Binghamton University**
308. Cecile Pineda, San Diego State University
309. Kavita Philip, University of California, Irvine
310. Adrienne Pine, American University
311. Julio Pino, Kent State University
312. Edie Pistolesi, California State University, Northridge***
313. Haley Pollack, University of Wisconsin, Madison
314. Deborah Poole, The Johns Hopkins University
315. Mike Powelson, California State University, Northridge
316. Janet Powers, Gettysburg College
317. Vijay Prashad, Trinity College
318. Gautam Premnath, University of California, Berkeley
319. Arthur Preisinger, Texas Lutheran University
320. David Pruitt, St. Louis Community College
321. Jasbir Puar, Rutgers University
322. Laura Pulido, University of Southern California
323. James Quesada, San Franciso State University
324. Jessica Quindel, Berkeley High School
325. José Rabasa, University of California, Berkeley
326. Peter Rachleff, Macalester College
327. Leslie Radford, East Los Angeles College
328. R. Radhakrishnan, University of California, Irvine
329. Leigh Raiford, University of California, Berkeley
330. Aneil Rallin, Soka University of America
331. Geetha Ramanathan, Westchester University of Pennsylvania
332. Junaid Rana, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
333. Jacki Thompson Rand, University of Iowa
334. Radha Ranganathan, California State University, Northridge
335. Kasturi Ray, San Francisco State University
336. Chandan Reddy, University of Washington, Seattle
337. Shana Redmond, University of Southern California
338. Adolph Reed, University of Pennsylvania
339. Debbie Reese, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
340. Kenneth Ring, University of Connecticut
341. Bruce Robbins, Columbia University
342. Cedric J. Robinson, University of California, Santa Barbara
343. William Robinson, University of California, Santa Barbara
344. Steve Roddy, University of San Francisco
345. Anthony Bayani Rodriguez, University of Southern California
346. Cesar Rodriguez, University of California, Santa Barbara
347. Dylan Rodriguez, University of California, Riverside
348. Ilia Rodriguez, University of New Mexico
349. David Roediger, University of Illinois
350. Jessica Rogner, Michigan State University
351. Clarissa Rojas, California State University, Long Beach
352. Jerry Rosen, California State University, Northridge
353. Sonia Rosen, University of Pennsylvania
354. Andrew Ross, New York University
355. Suzanne Ross, United Federation of Teachers, Clinical Psychology
356. Marty Roth, University of Minnesota
357. Cheryl A. Rubenberg, Florida International University, Miami, FL
358. Lori Rudolph, New Mexico Highlands University
359. Rachael M. Rudolph, Emory & Henry University
360. Melanie Ruefli, Georgia Perimeter College
361. Roshni Rustomji-Kerns, Sonoma State University
362. Adam Sabra, University of Georgia
363. Prantik Saha, Columbia University Medical Center
364. Ken Sakatani, California State University, Northridge
365. Steven Salaita, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
366. Maria-Josefina Saldana-Portilla, New York University
367. Vida Samiian, California State University, Fresno
368. Rakhshanda Saleem, Harvard Medical School
369. Basel Saleh, Radford University
370. George Salem, University of Southern California
371. George Saliba, Columbia University
372. Ranu Samantrai, Indiana University
373. Rosaura Sanchez, University of California, San Diego
374. Eleuterio Santiago-Diaz, University of New Mexico
375. Bhaskar Sarkar, University of California, Santa Barbara
376. Aseel Sawalha, Pace University
377. Simona Sawhney, University of Minnesota
378. Seleem Sayyar, Emory University
379. Fayyad Sbaihat, Carnegie Mellon University***
380. Robert Schaible, University of Southern Maine
381. Damia Schnyder, University of California, Santa Barbara
382. C. Heike Schotten, University of Massachusetts, Boston
383. Malini Johar Schueller, University of Florida
384. James Scully, University of Connecticut
385. Dylan Schwilk, Texas Tech University
386. Sarita See, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
387. Evalyn Segal, San Diego State University
388. May Seikaly, Wayne State University
389. Samah Selim, Rutgers University
390. Bharath A. Sethuraman, California State University, Northridge
391. Svati P. Shah, Duke University
392. Sima Shakhsari, Stanford University
393. Anton Shammas, University of Michigan*
394. Alpana Sharma, Wright State University
395. Simona Sharoni, SUNY Plattsburgh
396. Stephen Sheehi, University of South Carolina
397. Matthew Shenoda, Goddard College*
398. Scott Shepard, Richland College
399. Setsu Shigematsu, University of California, Riverside
400. Magid Shihade, University of California Davis***
401. Snehal Shingavi, University of Mary Washington
402. Ella Shohat, New York University
403. David Shorter, UCLA
404. Tasneem Siddiqui, University of Southern California
405. Yumna Siddiqi, Middlebury College
406. Denise Silva, University of California, San Diego
407. David Simpson, University of California, Davis
408. Ajay Skaria, University of Minnesota
409. Andor Skotnes, Sage College
410. Alana Smith, New York University
411. Andrea Smith, University of California, Riverside
412. Jeffery R. Smith, The New School for Social Research
413. Christine So, Georgetown University
414. Louis Solis, California State University, Northridge
415. Scott Sorrell, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
416. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Columbia University
417. Rajini Srikanth, University of Massachusetts, Boston
418. Nancy Stoller, University of California, Santa Cruz
419. Ted Stolze, Cerritos College
420. Beverly Stuart, Antioch University Seattle
421. Patricia Stuhr, Ohio State University
422. Abha Sur, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
423. Kenneth Surin, Duke University
424. Ghada Talhami, Lake Forest College
425. Janet Tallman, Antioch College
426. Salim Tamari, Institute for Palestine Studies
427. Helga Tawil-Souri, New York University
428. Paul Thomas, University of California, Berkeley
429. William J. Thompson, University of Michigan, Dearborn
430. Daniel Tiffany, University of Southern California
431. Saadia Toor, City University of New York
432. Haunani-Kay Trask, University of Hawai`i, Ma-noa
433. Corbin Treacy, University of Minnesota
434. Robert Trivers, Rutgers University
435. Michael Tucker, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
436. Nancy Turner, University of Wisconsin-Platteville
437. Julie Thi Underhill, University of California, Berkeley
438. Juan Carlos Vallejo, State University of New York
439. Paul Vangelisti, Otis College of Art and Design
440. Stefano Varese, University of California, Davis
441. Hypatia Varioumis, Drury University
442. Gauri Viswanathan, Columbia University
443. Kamala Visweswaran, University of Texas
444. Catherine Wagner, Miami University*
445. Dorothy Wang, Williams College
446. Richard Wark, University of Maryland
447. Robert Warrior, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
448. Adam Waterman, Massachusetts College of Art and Design
449. Lisa Wedeen, University of Chicago
450. Brad Werner, University of California, San Diego
451. Johnny E. Williams, Trinity College, Hartford, CT
452. Randall Williams, independent scholar
453. Mary Wilson, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
454. Howard Winant, University of California, Santa Barbara
455. Jessica Winegar, Temple University
456. Hannah Wolfe, St. Luke's Roosevelt Medical Center
457. Charles L. Yates, Earlham College (IN)
458. Cynthia Young, Boston College
459. Mansour Zand, University of Nebraska, Omaha
460. Edward Ziter, New York University

Endorsements from Cultural Workers:

1. Anne Marie Abowd, Norhweset Ohio Peace Coalition
2. Paul Abowd, journalist, Labor Notes
3. Ali Abunimah, writer
4. Daniel Abdal-Hayy Moore, poet and editor
5. Elmaz Abinader, writer*
6. Reham Alhelsi, Blogger
7. Naji Ali, journalist, Crossing the Line
8. Dunya Alwan, Birthright Unplugged***
9. Mohammed Asaad, writer, poet, critic, Kuwait
10. Mary Austin, Curator, Triptych Readings
11. Anna Baltzer, writer
12. Joslyn Barnes, writer, film producer, Louverture Films
13. Jesus Barraza, artist
14. Nora Barrows-Friedman, journalist, Flashpoints Radio
15. Abe Batshon, Patriarch hip-hop artist
16. Rachid Belbachir, MANA (Maghreb Assn of North America — for the North African community)
17. William Bell, cultural worker — blogger and minister
18. Khalil Bendib, Sculptor, political cartoonist, humorist
19. Dreama Blankenbeckler, Artist*
20. Blasé Bonpane, Office of the Americas
21. Adrienne Maree Brown, executive director of the Ruckus Society
22. Rashida Bumbray, Visual and Performance artist
23. Shahid Buttar, poet, musician
24. Ellen Cantarow, independent writer
25. Luzviminda Carpenter, Pinay sa Seattle
26. Hayan Charara, editor and poet
27. DAM, hip hop artists, Lydd, 1948 Palestine
28. Mary Ellen Davis, Filmmamker and Teacher
29. Raymond Deane, composer and author
30. DJ Emancipacion, DJ, San Francisco
31. Andrew Dougherty, researcher — FRDSCA
32. David Engle, writer
33. Barbara Ehrenreich, writer
34. Ben Ehrenreich, writer and journalist
35. Nava EtShalom, poet*
36. Jody Evans, Code Pink
37. Angela Fautt, KPFA 94.1 Berkeley
38. Andrew Felluss, music producer***
39. Jordan Flaherty, writer
40. Eileen Fleming, We Are Wide Awake; writer and producer
41. Bill Fletcher, Executive Editor, The Black Commentator **
42. Glen Ford, Executive Editor, Black Agenda Report **
43. Racheli Gai, Tucson Women in Black
44. Mark Gonzales, poet, Human Writes Project**
45. Marilyn Hacker, poet*/**
46. Mary Harb, Palestinian American Women's Association
47. Lily Haskell, Arab Resource and Organizing Centre
48. Nadia Hijab, writer
49. Janet Holmes, poet*
50. Libby Hunter, musician
51. Lydia Howell, writer, poet, radio journalist and producer, Minneapolis
52. Annemarie Jacir, Filmmaker **
53. Elyse Jajuga, Mt. Pleasant Free School
54. Mohja Kahf, poet*
55. Remi Kanazi, poet, writer, editor***
56. Rima Najjar Kapitan, Managing Partner, Amal Law Group
57. Christine Karatnytsky, Scripts Librarian, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts
58. Hugo Herlych Karlsen, author and publisher, Denmark
59. Charlotte Kates, Labor for Palestine ***
60. Judith Kazantzis, poet and writer, UK
61. Michelle Kinnucan, Middle East Task Force of Ann Arbor, MI
62. Jeff Kipilman, Temple Beth Israel, Midrasha Instructor
63. K-Salaam & Beatnick, hip-hop artist
64. Paul Laverty, screenwriter
65. Jeffrey Layton, songwriter/producer, Los Angeles
66. Eloise Lee, Media Alliance
67. Stephen Lendman, The Global Research News Hour
68. Howard Lenow, American Jews for a Just Peace
69. Michael Letwin, New York City Labor Against the War
70. MaGestiK LeGenD, hip-hop artist
71. Mandolyn Ludlum, Mystic, hip-hop artist
72. Lisa Suhair Majaj, poet, scholar/critic
73. Claude Marks, The Freedom Archives
74. Khaled Mattawa, poet*
75. Ahmina Maxey, East Michigan Environmental Action Council
76. Janet Ellis McAdams, poet*
77. Dan Taulapapa McMullin, indigenous artist, writer and filmmaker
78. D.H. Melhem, poet, novelist, scholar/critic
79. Momina Mir, Central Student Association, University of Guelph
80. Jennifer Mogannam, Palestinian Youth Network (PYN)
81. Mike Montagne, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy
82. Tom Mysiewicz, freelance writer
83. Matt Nelson, Graphic Artist
84. Anggia Putri Nilasari, blogger, radio producer
85. Jaisal Noor, Democracy Now!/the Indypendent
86. Kiilu Nyasha, SFLive TV program
87. Nigel Parry, writer
88. Shailja Patel, poet, performance artist
89. Priyanka Pathak, INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence
90. Pathanapong Pathanadilok, Alternative Intervention Models
91. Katrina Pestano, Writer and hip-hop artist
92. David Peterson, writer, Chicago
93. Dennis Phillips, poet
94. Don Prange, Minister, St. James United Church of Christ, Lovettsville, VA
95. F. D. Reeve, poet
96. Leila Nachawati Rego, blogger, Spain
97. Dick Reilly, Media activist
98. Adrienne Rich, poet, essayist**
99. Elizabeth Robinson, journalist, KCSB Radio
100. Stephen Rodefer, writer
101. Asad Sadiq, Shia Association of North America
102. Khadiga Safwat, Oxford Women Network for Justice and Peace
103. Andrea Scarpino, poet
104. Richard Schaaf, poet, founding editor of Azul Editions
105. Mark Segal, Museum Educator
106. Adil Semmar, film critic & journalist, Morocco
107. Celia Shallal, Arab American National Museum
108. Anton Shammas, novelist*
109. Adam Shapiro, Documentary Filmmaker, Co-Founder ISM
110. Deema Shehabi, poet, San Francisco
111. Guenter Schenk, Strasbourg, France, publishers consultant for Alawi-Verlag
112. Matthew Shenoda, poet*
113. Michel Shehadeh, Executive Director, Arab Film Festival**
114. Andrew Silvera, Action4Palestine
115. Rose Sims, SPEAK!
116. Thomas Immanuel Steinberg, journalist, Germany
117. Simone Swan, The Adobe Alliance
118. Joe Truss, Some of All Parts hip hop group
119. Laura C. Stevenson, writer
120. Wesley Taylor, Emergence Media
121. Tiffany TenEyck, Labor Notes
122. Shelby Tucker, author
123. Desmond Mpilo Tutu, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town**
124. Catherine Wagner, poet*
125. Jeff Warner, Los Angeles Jews for Peace
126. Ilana Weaver, Invincible, hip-hop artist
127. Irving Weinman, writer
128. Rev. Gretchen Winkler, Lutheran Church of Martha and Mary Mt. Prospect, IL
129. Will Youmans, Iron Sheik, hip-hop artist

Endorsements from International Colleagues:

1. Ahmed Abbes, University of Rennes 1
2. Noha Taha Abokrysha, Cairo University
3. Mona Baker, University of Manchester
4. Mikhael Balabane, Universite Paris 13
5. Rana Barakat, Birzeit University
6. Katherine Bullock, University of Toronto, Mississauga
7. Coskun Cakir, Istanbul University
8. Chris Collom, University of Calgary
9. Robert Boyce, London School of Economics
10. Haim Bresheeth, University of East London
11. Jean Bricmont, Universite de Louvain
12. C.J.Burns-Cox MD, Medical Doctor and Human Rights Worker
13. Muhammad Talha Cicek, Sabanci University
14. Ned Curthoys, Australian National University
15. Mike Cushman, London School of Economics and Political Science
16. Bucker Dangor, Imperial College, London
17. Uri Davis, Al-Quds University, Palestine
18. Judit Druks, University College London
19. Ira Dworkin, The American University in Cairo
20. Mahmoud El Lozy, American University in Cairo
21. Shadia Elshishini, Cairo University
22. Hani Faris, University of British Columbia, Canada
23. Emmanuel Farjoun, Hebrew University
24. Rachel Giora, Tel Aviv University
25. Benjamin Greer, University of London
26. Peter Hallward, Middlesex University, UK
27. Michael Harris, Universite Paris 7
28. Nigel Harris, University College London
29. Khalil Hindi, American University, Beirut
30. Huma Ibrahim, Zayed University
31. Ivar Ekeland, University of British Columbia, Canada
32. Kathleen Kamphoefner, Executive Director, St. Andrew's Refugee Services, Cairo, Egypt
33. Musa Karam, City University, London, UK
34. Michael Keefer, University of Guelph
35. Paul Kelemen, Univ of Manchester
36. M. Moncef Khaddar, Eastern Mediterranean University
37. Aziza Khalidi, Islamic University of Lebanon
38. Lilia Labidi, University of Tunis
39. Malcolm H Levitt, University of Southampton
40. Ronit Lentin, Sociology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
41. Abby Lippman, McGill University
42. Moshé Machover, London School of Economics and Political Science
43. Gerald MacLean, University of Exeter
44. Rania Masri, University of Balamand
45. Anat Matar, Tel Aviv University
46. Patrick McGreevy, American University of Beirut
47. Rima Najjar Merriman, Arab American University, Jenin
48. Khalid Mohiuddin, University of Damascus
49. Ali Mokdad, Universite de Montreal
50. Chivvis Moore, Birzeit University
51. Marcy Newman, Amman Ahliyya University, Jordan***
52. Sam Noumoff, McGill University
53. Joseph Oesterle, Universite Paris VI
54. Ilan Pappé, University of Exeter**
55. Lucia Quaresma, University of Rio de Janeiro
56. Mazin Qumsiyeh, Bethlehem and Birzeit Universities
57. Diana M.A. Relke, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
58. Mary Rizzo, art restorer, writer, translator — Italy
59. Kelly T. Roberts, Queensland University of Technology
60. Donna M. Ruzzano, Eastern Mediterranean University
61. Rima Sabban, Zayed University, Dubai
62. Hanan Sabea, American University in Cairo
63. Mehmet Murat Sahin, Middle East Technical University, Ankara
64. Richard Seaford, University of Exeter
65. Sherene Seikaly, American University in Cairo
66. Ur Shlonsky, University of Geneva
67. Marcus Slease, Ealing and West London College
68. Kobi Snitz, Technion, Israel
69. Paul Taber, Lebanese American University
70. Lisa Taraki, Birzeit University**
71. Jason Thomas, Kosin University, Korea
72. Sunera Thobani, Associate Professor, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
73. Jean-Pierre Thys, Brussels University
74. Stellan Vinthagen, Gothenberg University, Sweden
75. Rami Zurayk. American University of Beirut
76. Elia Zureik, Queen's University

Organizational Endorsements:
1. 10/15 Anarchist Collective, Toledo,OH
2. Action 4 Palestine
3. The Adobe Alliance
4. Al Awda
5. Another Jewish Voice, Santa Fe
6. Arab Resource and Organizing Center
7. Artists Against Apartheid, USCEIO affiliate
8. Birthright Unplugged
9. British Committee for the Universities of Palestine
10. Cafe Intifada — film/cultural group
11. Campaign to End Israeli Apartheid, Southern California
12. Code Pink
13. Emory Advocates for Justice in Palestine
14. The Free Palestine Alliance (USA)
15. Friends of Bil'in in USA
16. Green Party of the United States
17. Harrisburg Middle East Justice and Peace (South Central Pennsylvania)
18. INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence
19. International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network — Los Angeles Chapter
20. Los Angeles Jews for Peace
21. Los Angeles Palestine Labor Solidarity Committee
22. National Council of Arab Americans
23. New York City Labor against War
24. Palestinian Economists Association
25. PATOIS: The New Orleans International Human Rights Film Festival
26. PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy
27. Radian Records, LLC, music production company
28. Radical Arab Women's Activist Network
29. Radius of Arab American Writers (RAWI)
30. Right to Education Campaign Campaign, Birzeit University
31. Shi'a Organization of America
32. Students Creating Radical Change, New York University
33. Students for Justice in Palestine, UC Davis
34. Teachers Against the Occupation, Minnesota
35. US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
36. US Palestinian Community Network

* Cross listed as Cultural Worker and Academic
** Advisory Board Member
*** Organizing Committee Member/Founding Member

Contact Roberta Dzubow by email at Roberta@adgforum.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, March 13, 2010.

This was written by William Katz and it appeared on his website


THIS IS DISGRACEFUL, DESPICABLE, OUTRAGEOUS — AT 7:04 P.M. ET: Is there any end to the foreign-policy blundering of this left-wing administration? It's hard to make this up:

(CNSNews.com) — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that the State Department is soliciting comments from citizens, advocacy groups and other non-governmental organizations on the human rights record of the United States.

"Human rights are universal, but their experience is local. This is why we are committed to holding everyone to the same standard, including ourselves," Clinton told a press briefing at the State Department, where she unveiled the "2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices."

Do we have anyone available who will stand up for the United States?

Clinton said the U.S. is now gathering facts on its own record because — as a member of the U.N. Human Rights Council — it is participating in the UNHRC's "universal periodic review" process.

The Obama administration's decision to join the Human Rights Council was controversial. The Geneva-based, 47-member HRC faces numerous criticisms, chief among them the presence of countries with poor rights records. Iran is currently running for a seat on the council.

Controversial? That's an understatement. The "Human Rights Council" is one of the most degenerate divisions of the already degenerate United Nations.

"In the fall, we will present a report (to the UNHRC) based on the input of citizens and NGOs, gathered online and in face-to-face meetings across the country attended by senior government officials," Clinton said on Thursday.

Sickening and disgusting. The idea that this free nation should report to a group of thugs rips bare the agenda of the Obama administration. Someone called Obama the first "post-American" president, and I'm afraid that's how he sees himself.

Hillary Clinton carries plenty of baggage, moral and otherwise. But I never thought she'd agree to anything like this. Shame.*********** CNSNews.com

The Human Rights Council has been criticized for disproportionately criticizing Israel at the expense of other situations around the world. In this March 2, 2009 photo, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki used the HRC as a platform to condemn the "illegitimate Zionist regime" and call for Israeli leaders to be indicted for crimes against humanity. (AP Photo)

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 13, 2010.


The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) went ahead and dedicated a square in El Bireh for the Dalal Mughrabi, the leader of a squad that murdered more than three dozen civilians in Israel, years ago, before she was put down. The ceremonies were somewhat muted, apparently as a result of Israeli protests. But a note of defiance was sounded by Tawfiq Tirawi, of the Fatah Central Committee, "We are all Dalal Mughrabi. For us she is not a terrorist."

Her squad first murdered an American photographer on the beach. They hijacked a couple of buses for a rampage that killed at least a dozen children. A spokesman for PM Netanyahu asked what kind of a role model does the commemoration make for Arab children (Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 3/12, A9).

This question Vice-President Biden did not ask. Alleging an affront over Jews building houses in eastern Jerusalem, as PM Netanyahu had said they would, he expressed no sensitivity over P.A. glorification of political murder. Neither did the UN suggest it "unhelpful" for peace when the P.A. publicly makes terrorism its model, for it reserves all its indignation for false accusations against Israeli attempts to root out other terrorism.

The Fatah official denied that Mughrabi was a terrorist. That is because to be labeled a terrorist is shameful. So the Arabs deny it is terrorism that they encourage. But terrorism is the deliberate attack on civilians for political purposes. It naturally violates the rules of war. The Arabs want to redefine "terrorism" so that the heinous act of murdering civilians is not a crime if it is for a purpose that the Arabs think they can get the UN to approve. The Arab denial, alone, should alert any thinking person to the dishonest and immoral thinking and behavior of jihad. People should wonder at the validity of accusations by jihadists against Israel.

Most people know that the Holocaust represents the acme of antisemitism, and should realize that such bigotry did not suddenly disappear but is being spread by jihadists. The only thing one can say in favor of jihad is that it is an equal-opportunity hatred — the jihadists make war on everybody they can, including fellow Muslims, as the suffering people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have found.


As he was leaving the Middle East, Vice-President Biden praised Abbas and his PM Fayyad as the first Palestinian Authority (P.A.) leaders with whom Israel could make long-term peace (Ethan Bronner, NY Times, 3/12, A9).

They said that about Arafat, too, and gave him a Nobel Peace Prize for it, before his wars became too notorious to lie about him any more. Abbas belies Biden's claim by honoring a terrorist, as discussed in the prior article.

The P.A. calls Mughrabi's attacks "resistance to occupation." Does it ever occur to our distinguished Vice-President and to our reputedly bright President that if murdering Jewish civilians to resist occupation is acceptable to the P.A. and, by failure to condemn it, to the U.S., and since the P.A. calls all of Israel "occupied," that Abbas is signaling permanent war until Israel is destroyed? And since Fatah official Tirawi identified the Palestinian Arab population with the terrorist, he indicates that the population as a whole favors war and terrorism as its means. The U.S. government wants to award those terrorists with sovereignty, which would empower more terrorism. As an enabler of terrorism, and not just its victim, the U.S. government shares guilt for some terrorism.


Israel's PM Netanyahu apologized to Vice-President Biden, before he left the country. The gist of the apology was that Israel would not make announcements contrary to U.S. policy while a U.S. emissary was visiting.

The U.S. felt the announcement would jeopardize negotiations (Joshua Mitnick and Jay Solomon, Wall St. J., 3/12, A8). Other news briefs reported that it raised Palestinian Authority (P.A.) suspicions whether Israel is trustworthy.

Trust? The P.A. does not trust Israel anyway. It probably feels it important to declare distrust in order to gain sympathy as an aggrieved party. It probably does not trust Israel, because it assumes that Israel acts with the same kind of deception that jihadists permit themselves to commit.

Why does the U.S. never challenge the P.A. to stop breaking its peace accords with Israel, lest Israel stop trusting it? Because the State Dept. behaves as if it has the same notion of honor as do jihadists.

Actually, the apology now renders Netanyahu more untrustworthy than before. He had exempted Jerusalem from the temporary building freeze. Now he is saying that he would suspend any policy the U.S. dislikes, while a U.S. emissary is visiting Israel. U.S. emissaries visit often. As Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA asks, what happens to Israeli policy? Does Israel now take orders from the U.S.?

After Israel had said it would build in Jerusalem, and then took a step in implementation of that policy, U.S. and P.A. claims of being offended by the step are not justified. Biden should apologize to Israel for denouncing it. Apparently the arrogance of the U.S. that Democrats perceived in the Bush administration has become even stronger in the Obama administration.

U.S. insistence on its policies would be more palatable, if it had a successful foreign policy record. It does not. Lacking wisdom for itself, how can it have the temerity to impose its views on others? China treats the U.S. the same way that the U.S. treats Israel, when U.S. policy displeases China. That should be a lesson to the U.S., but the U.S. cannot restrain its arrogance.

It is difficult for the U.S. to reconcile promoting democracy, peace, and free trade, with not offending other countries. It would help the U.S. succeed if it practiced and promoted democracy, peace, and free trade consistently. But the U.S. tries to override Israeli or Honduran democracy in favor of demagogues who do not want peace. As for free trade, it seems that all countries favor free trade but most subsidize or protect their own industries and yet complain about other countries doing likewise.


The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), not only paid for, it also helped the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) write a "Palestine Guide Book" that falsifies history and geography to fit P.A. propaganda against Israel.

Book and map depict historical Palestine incorrectly, "'Palestine lies between the Mediterranean Coast and the Jordan River.' Not until Page 10 are we informed — under the heading 'Country' — that 'Palestine comprises the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.'"

Nor is the Palestinian Authority a country but an autonomous area under Israeli jurisdiction. Nor is all of Judea and Samaria included within the P.A..

The booklet's message is that the "country" includes the smaller area of the Territories, but the P.A. claims the whole of "historical Palestine." That would include Israel.

Backing up this interpretation of the message is "Under 'Capital,'" there is a single word: 'Jerusalem.[' This flies in the face of the official Palestinian Authority (PA) position that it seeks 'East Jerusalem' as its capital." Hint: the P.A. wants all of Jerusalem and all of the land over the armistice line that was left at the end of the first Arab war on Israel.

There is no reason for the Arabs to get all that land. UN Security Council Resolution 242 does not require it. It called for some but not total Israeli withdrawal. It knew that the armistice line would not afford Israel secure borders. It did not refer to a Palestinian people or state. It also stated that negotiations should lead to the withdrawal, but the P.A. is trying to get the U.S. to impose a withdrawal without negotiations.

The U.S. should not collude with false Arab propaganda (Israel Resource Review, 3/12).

Actually, the Palestine Mandate included what now is called Jordan, which is on the other side of the River. The Mandate was set up for the Jewish people. The boundary is defined and the purpose is described in my copy of the Mandate.

Jordan left the Mandate in 1946, when it gained independence. The significance of misstating the boundaries of historical Palestine is that it keeps people from realizing that most of Palestine was taken away from the Jewish people and that there already is a Palestinian Arab state, Jordan. That fact takes the wind out of the sails of P.A. claims.


The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) will debate some resolutions about Israeli policies. One resolution calls Israel "apartheid." Others ask "...the church to rebuke Caterpillar for continuing to sell products to Israel."

What factual material will be put before delegates? Ones known for anti-Zionism to begin with. "For example, the Israel/Palestine Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA), has hosted a blog which linked to an obviously anti-Semitic video titled 'I AM ISRAEL' that accused Israel of controlling American foreign policy."

Meanwhile, the Presbyterians' Middle East Study Committee published a report "...which includes a historical analysis that demonizes Zionism, omits important information about Arab violence against Jews in the first half of the 20th century, and also includes a letter to American Jews that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of mainstream Jewish leaders in the U.S."

Jewish leaders in the U.S. have responded with anger, as have some members of the denomination. Below is a roundup of useful links relating to the PC(USA)'s deliberations.

Breaking Down the Walls: Report of the Middle East Study Committee to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). March 5, 2010. This is the full report. Smaller sections of the report can be found here.

"Jewish Groups Upset With Presbyterians," Jewish Telegraph Agency, March 11, 2010.

"Presbyterian Church USA Report "Offensive Attack On Judaism And Israel," Anti-Defamation League, March 11, 2010.

"Presbydrearians," Spengler (a First Things Blog), March 11, 2010 (Dexter Van Zile, Camera, 3/11. Those are only the most recent citations.)

Those who allege Jewish power over America and its foreign policy, an allegation not based on evidence just assertion, i.e., bigotry, fail to observe that the State Dept. keeps chastising Israel and making one-sided demands of it, and the allegers are free to do likewise. What a contradiction, accusing Israel of power over them, while they and the government exert power over Israel. Not total, of course, but powerful.

What is going on within the Presbyterian Church? Some of the liberal churches in the U.S. have influential activists who confuse liberalism with a distorted notion of third worldism. Accordingly, they stereotype Israeli oppression of Arabs, but the Arabs with whom they sympathize are oppressors of their own people and of others, including Jews. Christians are among the particularly oppressed in Arab areas. Those who consider themselves liberal in this way champion the most illiberal of people. You see, facts are not the issue. Those can be fabricated. Ideology is the issue with the activists. They tend to screen out non-defamatory news about Israel.

In these churches, many members and officials oppose this liberal take-over and its diversion from religion. Perhaps they ought to come up with relevant counter-proposals, such as condemnation of the Palestinian Authority, including Hamas, for allowing harassment of Christians.

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

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, March 13, 2010.

1. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the rhino? A leftwing fascist from the Israeli Meretz party (which now attracts less than 3% of Israeli voters) set up a Facebook group entitles "Im Tirtzu is Fascist," as a gimmick to smear the Zionist student group in Israel, Im Tirtzu. You may recall that Im Tirtzu issued the now world-famous report exposing the fact that 92% of the anti-Israel smears in the Goldstone Report came from groups financed by the New Israel Fund (NIF). The head of the New Israel Fund, Naomi Chazan, also from Meretz, has been threatening to sue Im Tirtzu. Now the heads of Im Tirtzu are threatening to sue the owner of the Facebook group that smears them.

The story in Hebrew appears here: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3861551,00.html

2. Speaking of the New Israel Fund (NIF), as you recall the Israeli chattering classes soiled themselves in rage when Im Tirtzu and the rest of the non-insane Israeli public expressed condemnation of the fact that the NIF funds countless picayune treasonous groups inside Israel, as its way of destroying Israel from within. Haaretz, in particular, denounced all those who raised concerns over these groups getting NIF funding from outside Israel, especially since most of NIF's funds come from anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sources.

Well, Haaretz finally found a form of foreign funding of activity inside Israel it wishes to condemn in the shrillest terms.

It is simply aghast that the Americans for a Safe Israel (www.afsi.org) are providing funds for prizes for Israeli students who write essays about Zev Jabotinksy. This is intolerable interference in internal Israeli affairs by a foreign extremist group. AFSI is extremist in the "minds" of Haaretz editors because AFSI believes Israel has the right to exist and the right to defend itself, things Haaretz editors obviously oppose. I the opinion of Haaretz, the Israeli mainstream includes people like Gideon Levy, who openly calls for Israel to be exterminated, and Amira Hass, who has never heard of a Palestinian terrorist she does not like.

You can see the Haaretz take for yourself here:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155889.html (The Hebrew version was much more shrill in calling AFSI names, insisting it was aligned with Eretz Yisrael Shlema extremists, which it is not).

3. On the other hand, Israeli leftist fascism took a hit this past week and suffered an important loss. The Israeli Supreme Court actually came out for democracy and open government.

The case involved one Elitzur Segel, who was prosecuted by the Israeli Attorney General because he wrote some things that the latter did not like. For those who mistakenly are of the impression that Israel has freedom of speech, Segel, who is active in Moshe Feiglin's group "Manhigut Yehudit," published an opinion piece, whose language was a bit overheated. The Attorney General prosecuted Segel for the crime of "insulting a public figure." Israel is probably the only democracy on earth where insulting a public official is a crime. In 2004 Segel published an article in which he accused the Chief Rabbi of the army at that time, General Israel Weiss, of acting as an accomplice to murder, incest and violating the Sabbath, this against the refusal of Weiss to come out more strongly against the use of the army to expel Jewish "settlers" from the Gaza Strip. Segel noted that in Rabbinic law the punishments for these offenses includes stoning to death. The last sentence is simply a factually correct assertion. Segel was also angry that Weiss had not issued a Rabbinic ruling that soldiers must refuse orders to evict other Jews from their homes. I am not sure what the incest sentence referred to.

Anyways, Israeli leftists can call for Israel to be exterminated, can cheer on mass murders of Jews, can deny that Jews are even a people, can claim that the Zionists invented the "false claim" that six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust (and if you think I am making up the fact that some say that — you are wrong), can claim that Israeli Jews are not Jews at all but Khazar imposters, and that is all protected speech. But if Segel "insults" the Chief Rabbi of the Army, that is a crime. Of course, when Haaretz itself runs venomous defamations of the same Chief Rabbi of the army, that is always protected speech.

To get to the point, Segel also insists that the Attorney General is attempting to suppress freedom of speech for right-wingers while refusing to prosecute left-wingers who call for treason, violence, and worse. To prove his point, he petitioned to get 1860 documents from the Attorney General on other cases, mainly on other cases where the prosecution decided NOT to indict leftists. The Attorney General refused to turn over the documents.

Now as a side note, Israel is supposed to have a freedom of information act, except that it is a law whose main function is to deny Israelis access to information. Lest we mislead you, the clauses in the law that prevent Israelis from gaining access to information from the government almost never have anything to do with national security. We have no problem with military matters being kept hush-hush. But Israeli public sector offices can pretty much refuse to turn over to citizens information about anything. A good friend of mine was refused information on why the municipality of Haifa refused to approve for him a commercial enterprise operating on a street where almost every other building has commercial enterprises. I guess it was just a state secret too sensitive to risk falling into the hands of the Hamas.

Well, Segel went all the way to the Supreme Court, and he won there in his demand to get access to the documents. A panel of three Supreme Court judges ordered the Attorney General to comply. And to make matters even more astounding, one of those three was Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch, whose understanding of the rules of democracy usually differ from yours and mine..

It is one small step for Israeli democracy, but one against step against leftwing suppression of freedom of speech of "right-wingers"!

3. Israel's treasonous Left: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3861765,00.html

4. State Department behind the Corrie Pogrom:

5. Here is Yossi Sarid insisting that Israel's radical leftists are not anti-Zionist and treasonous:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155902.html This piece by Sarid appears the very same week that Sarid publishes another of his essays in Counterpunch, the anti-Semitic leftwing Neo-Nazi pro-jihad internet rag run by the Stalinist Cockburn brothers. Here is Yossi jihading on Counterpunch:

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Cpocerl, March 13, 2010.

This is entitled "FemBots Roam the Desert" and comes from


March 13, 2010: Over the last five years, Israel has automated it's security along the Gaza border. Vidcams, with magnification and night vision capability, cover much of the border where Palestinian terrorists try to plant bombs next to Israeli patrol routes, or to try and get through the security fence.

The Gaza security fence is not just a fence, but a network of sensors for detecting Palestinian terrorists attempting to cross, or set up bombs for use against Israeli patrols. The Israeli border with Gaza is 51 kilometers long, and most of it is in desert or semi-desert terrain. For a long time, most of the border was patrolled by troops in vehicles, while parts of it, near gates, were also guarded by manned watchtowers. But the Palestinian terrorists have been persistent in attacking the fence, and trying to get through it. None have ever succeeded, and survived. But the patrols were often attacked. One Israeli soldier was kidnapped four years ago, and some are killed each year.

The solution has been a system of unmanned towers and vehicles. The Sentry-Tech pillbox towers were developed six years ago. These are unmanned, armored towers, about 15 feet tall and six feet in diameter. At the top of the tower is an armored shelter that conceals a remotely control machine-gun. This technology is similar to that used for many armored vehicles. The tower also contains vidcams, and other sensors. But the remotely controlled machine-gun has a vidcam that can see at night and the ability to enlarge and enhance the image. A radar system has been added, which is turned on when it gets foggy. The operators are at a central location (and are mostly female soldiers). If intruders are detected, one of the soldiers at the control center, opens the top of the tower and brings out the machine-gun. The 12.7mm machine-gun has a range of 2,000 meters. Some towers use a 7.62mm machine-gun, with a range of 800 meters. Allowing for some overlap, 16-17 of these towers can cover the entire Gaza border. Dozens of Palestinian terrorists have been killed trying to reach the areas guarded by the towers, and many more fled when the remote control machine-guns opened up.

In addition to the towers, remotely controlled armed vehicles have also been developed, to reinforce the towers or patrol areas where there are blind spots. Four years ago, the AvantGuard vehicle was introduced. This one used sensors and software that enabled it to patrol along planned routes, and was capable of some cross country operation as well. The AvantGuard mounted a remote controlled gun turret equipped with a 7.62mm machine-gun. The vehicle had digital cameras facing every direction, and used pattern recognition to identify potential threats (like people sneaking around where they are not supposed to be), or obstacles on the road. The idea was that a pair of human operators could control a dozen or more AvantGuard vehicles. This system was particularly effective at night, because it had night vision and moved quietly. Weighing only 1.3 tons, the AvantGuard was protected against rifle fire and fragments from shells and roadside bombs. AvantGuard was adequate for guarding industrial parks, but not the vast stretches of Negev desert, along the border with Gaza.

Building on the AvantGuard technology, another firm later developed the Guardium. Using the same TomCar vehicle, and remote control turret, the Guardium has better sensors and software. Guardium is pitched as "smart" enough to be used in urban areas, and to serve as an emergency response vehicle. That is, these would be stationed along isolated stretches of border, ready to drive off to deal with any terrorists who had gotten through the fence. The Guardium would thus arrive before a human quick reaction team, which would be stationed farther away.

But for most of the Gaza security fence, the fixed cameras can cover everything. The female troops that monitor the video or radar work four hour shifts, as staring at a screen does wear you down.

Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, March 13, 2010.
HERE are the latest scores in the war on terror. If you don't want to know, look away now. Israelis 1, Palestinians 0. Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a virtueless scrap of humanity, is dead. All good so far. But how he died and who killed him have now become the story.

This by Alan Howe and it appeared today in the Herald Sun
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/were-safer-why-argue/ story-e6frfhqf-1225837940398


There are two possibilities about his death in Dubai: that he was killed in a pillow fight gone wrong; or that Mossad agents bumped him off in a daring, indeed thrillingly bold, assassination on enemy soil. Israel isn't saying anything. That's the second scenario confirmed then.

On the evening of January 19, four people entered the Palestinian's room at the Al-Bustan Rotana Hotel using an electronic device that decoded Mabhouh's pass.

The assassins ambushed their target, injected him with a paralysing sedative and then suffocated him using a pillow. It was all over in 10 minutes. Nothing in the room was disturbed. The killers left calmly, leaving the door locked — from the inside.

The agents — and another 23 colleagues who joined them as plotters, spotters and decoys — then headed for the airport, flying to Asia and Europe.

That's a slick operation. You have to stand in awe at the audacity of the planning and the courage of the men — and one woman — who volunteered for it. Just 19 hours earlier none of them had even arrived in Dubai.

Al-Mabhouh had been gloating recently about how he killed two Israeli soldiers in 1989. He had a brain-squirming hatred for the Israelis who claim evidence that he spent his days smuggling rockets into Gaza. Ever since the Israelis retreated from their territory and left the locals to their own devices Gazans have thanked their neighbours with an almost ceaseless volley of deadly rockets.

Just days off turning 50, al-Mabhouh knew he was a worthy target for assassination. Usually, he travelled with a team of bodyguards, but they couldn't get seats on his flight, which was said to be the first leg of a weapons-buying trip to Thailand.

To help secure the success of this well-thought-out killing, Mossad's agents travelled on forged passports appearing to have been issued in Germany, France, Ireland, the UK and Australia.

Foreign ministers from these countries, including our own Stephen Smith, have been mildly critical of Israel, at least compared with the excitable Hamas spokesman who told Israel to "prepare to receive the hellfire of our anger". What, and that's new?

Our reaction was more subdued; forging Australian passports was not "the act of a friend".

Yes it was.

We cancelled the screening in Parliament House of an Israeli film called Noodle.

Take that, Tel Aviv!

Then we sent a small team from the Australian Federal Police to investigate the passport issue.

Uh-oh. That's asking for trouble. Yet to recover from the laugh-a-minute leadership of Mick Keelty, the AFP is capable of almost anything. Within hours of arriving in Tel Aviv, these Keystone clowns had screeched out of the underground car park beneath the Australian embassy there, hit a woman riding a bicycle and sped off.

The Mossad team also can be said to have done a hit and run, but I know who I'd want looking after my interests.

The woman they hit, Oshra Bar, 22, wants an apology from the AFP. Maybe that will come after they have worked up the courage to grovel to Dr Mohamed Haneef, the Brisbane doctor they falsely charged with providing assistance to terrorists, ruining his life.

If Australia's security services had to defend Israel, surrounded as it is by Arabs who attack it regularly and who, with a few Persian nutters running Iran — all of them united under the Koran — now plan its nuclear destruction, Israelis would clog their country's airports seeking a quick exit.

Even that brave people would know the game was up.

What could the agents of our Australian Secret Intelligence Service do in defence of the Middle East's lone democracy — don monkey masks and take on Hamas?

That's what they did during exercises at the Sheraton Hotel on Spring St. Disguised in "grotesque masks" they stormed the 10th floor, destroying property, panicking guests and assaulting the hotel manager. Taxpayers attended to the compensation bill, which ran to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Imagine if they — we — had real enemies. Australia's security services and federal police are a hopeless embarrassment and that would be a serious problem for us all if we had anything other than oceans for neighbours.

It was reported that a former ASIS agent said last week that forging passports was old hat — indeed as old as the espionage game itself. It's probably fair to assume we have done the same — if your security agency has the words secret in its title, don't expect to find out — but there is less need for it. Australian agents don't need to travel the globe eliminating people who threaten our very existence.

In any case, I can picture now passports forged by ASIS. Two innocents from, say, Nunawading, have had their identity stolen, but the pictures are certainly not of them. Standing before the immigration desk at Ben-Gurion Airport are two men. The talkative one is in a blue jacket, red polka dot bow tie and red-and-white striped bucket hat on which is written Peters Ice Cream. "No, I'm Zig!" he insists.

Security in Israel is no joking matter. Except to the United Nations, which last year hosted a conference against racism unforgivably inviting the unpredictable Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak. He ranted about how the Holocaust never happened — he doesn't want anything overshadowing the modern nuclear holocaust he plans.

IT'S bad enough that the UN cannot get international action to make a rogue state such as Iran adhere to its Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear weapons.

So, mostly alone but always threatened, Israel is forced to police its own future. Its defence must always be in its own hands.

That's why, on a Sunday afternoon in June 1981, using US provided satellite pictures it sent in its American-made fighter jets to bomb and destroy Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility just outside Baghdad.

The nuclear plant — being built using technology supplied by the West's most unreliable "ally", France — was near completion, but was to have been used only for the peaceful generation of power. Saddam Hussein had promised.

At the time, Israel's critics condemned it for trying to be the region's police, and pointed out that it had long been suspected that Israel itself was moving towards becoming a nuclear power. Golly, why would it be doing that?

Quietly, over the years, after having breathed a sigh of relief, most of the world came to understand what a favour that little country had performed for them.

These days attention has turned towards Iran and its development of a nuclear program. This, too, is to generate power. Then why hide it at terrific expense under the desert?

Gaza is an Iranian proxy state where that country's hate for the West is played out in fights against Israel.

This is the War on Terror.

Iran is the terror. Its Gaza agents are the terrorists. We must kill them.

And next on the agenda is Iran's nuclear plant.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, March 13, 2010.

It is all very well and good to groan and moan but what will he do about this? This was clearly an illegal action. The proper response is to file a criminal complaint and press for the arrest and imprisonment of the perpetrators. I am always suspicious of public officials who complain in public in a way that implies that there is nothing to do but accept the inevitable.

We must fight back with what is available to us. If all we have is the corrupt Israeli unJustice System, then that is what we must use and use it to the maximum.

Do not repeat the mistake of Amona. People were criminally assaulted and suffered serious injury. Nevertheless they waited weeks, even months before taking any sort legal action against the goons and most have not take any action at all. There were people I corresponded with that instead of being outraged and incensed by what happened to them, instead found all sorts of justifications for their attackers!

Every community that has been illegally attacked by the Barak goons must file criminal charges against them. Even the so called legal actions must be protested within the legal system. Do not be passive in face of this evil. []

Both of these below are from Arutz-Sheva


"Synagogue's Demolition Reminds Me of Oppressive Regimes."
Adar 26, 5770, 12 March 10 11:39

(Israelnationalnews.com) The mayor of Efrat, Oded Raviv, says that the destruction of the foundations of the synagogue in Efrat in the middle of the night reminds him of tactics used by oppressive regimes. He stated that even according to the government, public buildings are not included in the freeze on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria.  


Jerusalem Court Drop Charges Against Avreichim
March 13, 2010

A Jerusalem Municipal Court canceled legal action against two avreichim, tenant and landlord, for permitting shabbos davening in the private home in the Kiryat Yovel area of the capital. The two were being cited for illegal use of the home, violating city zoning law.

According to a report in the erev shabbos HaMevaser, city legal advisor's office Yossi Chavilov offered the two a deal, to drop the legal action against them in exchange for their agreeing to cancel the police complaint against him. Their complaint against Chavilov's office alleges that city inspectors and members of the legal advisor's staff fabricated documents and gave false testimony in court. A city inspector submitted a falsified affidavit attesting to having seen the private home used as a shul on shabbos.

During the cross examination in court by attorney R' Refael Shtub, a municipal inspector admitted he was not telling the truth, explaining to the court that in actuality, he never saw any signs indicating the home was used in violation of city zoning law and that the false affidavit he filed was done in cooperation with Chavilov's office and senior staff members.

The two rejected the offer, telling Chavilov and his staff they will be more than pleased to see them in court and let the process run its course.

Things being what they are, Chavilov has pulled the legal action anyway, realizing if he continues with the process against the two avreichim he and his staff are likely to further complicate matter until they find themselves in an untenable situation. As such, they informed the municipal court that they are withdrawing the legal action.

They are now planning to address the matter with State Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, seeking an investigation against Chavilov and staff members involved in the false documentation and fabrication of evidence. They will also ask the attorney general why Jerusalem Police are not acting and moving ahead with an investigation against Chavilov as the law demands.

(Yechiel Spira — YWN Israel)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Sheridan Neimark, March 12, 2010.

This is Ben Cohen's take on Bob Marshall-Andrew's article about Gaza. It is a cross-post from the Z-Word blog. This article points out very well the lies generated by those who hate Israel and the Jewish people.

This is archived at
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/03/09/lying-in-gaza/ ?msource=IMPACT18&tr=y&auid=6042856


A group of friends in London alerted me to this grubby little piece by a British Labour Party Member of Parliament, Bob Marshall-Andrews, concerning his recent visit to Gaza. Upon reading it, I was struck by various thoughts, not least the degree to which Marshall-Andrews words will be welcomed by the Hamas cheerleaders who compose the Palestinian solidarity movement, in marked contrast to the fierce condemnation with which this blog, and others like it, will greet his compendium of antisemitism-laced falsehoods. Why bother to refute such lies, one might ask, when those of us who defend Israel are at irreconcilable odds with those who demonize her, when any charge of antisemitism we make is bound to be dismissed as another tired attempt to muzzle debate? The most satisfactory answer I can come up with is that some things — and Marshall-Andrews article is one of them — are so odious that they cannot pass without rebuke.

To work, then. Here's how Marshall-Andrews sets the scene:

"Bags of cement are slit open by grinning ringletted guards. Having destroyed they maintain the destruction."

The "ringlets" he refers to are known, in Hebrew, as pe'ot, the sidelocks worn by ultraorthodox Jews. Now, I've spent a great deal of time in Israel and I can tell you that most Israeli soldiers don't wear pe'ot. So what visual image is Marshall-Andrews trying to conjure up here? One of a people that rejoices in radical evil, their grinning faces framed by those unmistakeably Jewish ringlets. Something a little like this, perhaps:

But of course, he's not antisemitic. That's just a device to smear supporters of the Palestinians.

Then he goes on to talk about the devastation visited upon Gaza. He describes a scene of apocalypse, in which a population living in the shadows of bombed sewage plants, cowed by chronic shortages of basic foodstuffs, somehow survives. Still, Marshall-Andrews can't resist telling us that, amidst all this horror, his Hamas hosts provided him and his colleagues with a "generous lunch." Continuing on the gastronomic theme, he then tells us that breakfast the next day consisted of boiled eggs and cheese, "because of the blockade." Actually, that's pretty standard fare at most hotel buffet tables, and a much healthier start to the day than that enjoyed by large numbers of inner-city kids who don't live in war zones.

His stomach still rumbling from that unsatisfying repast, Marshall-Andrews steps up the hyperbole. "This ruthless, genocidal repression is the worst in today's world," he states. "It is worse than the Sudan, worse than the Congo, worse than Burma — a large claim but true, and that truth lies not in the identity and suffering of the victims but in the identity and nature of the perpetrators."

In fact, this is a shameful, bare-faced lie. Those tempted to believe it should question the credentials of a man who, a few paragraphs earlier, confesses that he has "little experience of extensive war damage in civilian areas." Then again, reality is incidental to all this: the Israel-hatred swamps Marshall-Andrews judgment, just as it did with London Times hack Janine di Giovanni, who ludicrously claimed, in the wake of the Battle of Jenin in 2002, "[R]arely, in more than a decade of war reporting from Bosnia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life." There was, by the way, no massacre in Jenin.

One fact which Marshall-Andrews does get right — though no doubt he'd inflate the figure if he could get away with it — is that 1,400 died during Operation Cast Lead (he omits to mention that at least 60 per cent of those were bearing arms on behalf of Hamas.) Worse than Sudan — or "the Sudan" as he calls it, with touching colonial nostalgia? In Darfur, 300,000 died, either through violence or diseases caused by the displacement which drove 2.7 million people from their homes. Worse than Congo? According to an International Rescue Committee report, that conflict may have claimed a staggering 5.4 million lives; there are other, more cautious estimates, but even these do not dip below 2 million. Worse than Burma? After Cyclone Nargis killed 140,000 people in 2008, the 3.4 million survivors were deliberately blocked from receiving aid by the Burmese junta, which went so far as to arrest ordinary Burmese civilians who attempted to bring relief to the stricken area.

On this last point, it's worth remembering that repressive regimes, whether prosecuting war or minimizing public scrutiny of their responses to humanitarian disasters, want to make their targets suffer more, not less. They want the victims to be hungry and scared, unable to predict when the next aid convoy might arrive. In their siege of Sarajevo, the Bosnian Serb militias perfected this into a grotesque art form.

Life in Gaza, to the contrary, has — by comparison to these other situations — an enviable predictability. No, I'm not denying that Gaza needs humanitarian aid. I am saying that Gazans can be sure that the aid will arrive, just as it did over this last week, when 13,919 tons of aid rolled in. Close to 1.4 million liters diesel fuel and 832 tons of cooking oil crossed in as well, courtesy of the same state which Bob Marshall-Andrews obscenely accuses of carrying out a genocide in Gaza.

True, those figures come from the IDF. If they are massaged numbers or outright fabrications, then those who believe so should say so — and come up with credible evidence to counter them. I am confident — given the parallel universe inhabited by people like Bob Marshall-Andrews, in which the degree to which a statement is true depends on how intensely the person issuing it hates Israel — that they will not be able to do so.

Contact Sheridan by email at sneimark@browdyneimark.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, March 11, 2010.

A Fig Tree Begins Anew

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


I can still recall the first time one of my photographs became more than just a picture of something. It was a simple shot of a weathered, wooden fence post that I published in a local newspaper. A reader wrote me to say he enjoyed the photo because it evoked memories of his childhood growing up in Southern Oregon.

This shot reminded me of the first home we lived in here in Israel. The garden was dominated by a large fig tree which bore plentiful fruit every summer. When we visited the home prior to buying it, our realtor pulled a few ripe figs off the tree and we devoured them with great pleasure. It was an unfair sales ploy, but we enjoyed the fruit for many years. I took this shot on the Golan Heights last spring while prowling around the Ayit Waterfall. I used a rocky hillside opposite the tree as a dark background, which makes the leaves — no bigger than the upper part of my thumb — pop into the foreground. The early phases of spring growth are fleeting, but a photograph can preserve a moment that — like a childhood memory — is too quickly gone.

Technical Data: Nikon D300, 18-200mm lens at 200mm, f5.6 at 1/500 sec.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, March 12, 2010.

I'm not going to bash or rant about a Newsweek article about Turkey by Owen Matthews-shocking and dangerous as it is — but rather talk about what is wrong and inaccurate about it. That article is part of a new wave of defeatism sweeping the West, though it still remains subordinate to the more ostensibly attractive idea that there is no real conflict or at least one easy to fix by Western concessions.

Here's the title: "The Army Is Beaten: Why the U.S. should hail the Islamists." Yes, we should thank the Islamists for taking over Turkey. But wait a minute! The ruling AK party says it isn't Islamist. Indeed, I have been viciously attacked by them in the Turkish media for saying so. Up until now the line — including that from the regime itself — has been that we shouldn't be afraid of them because they are really just democrats. But now some are willing to face the truth and still sugarcoat it.

Matthews writes:

"The political logic should be simple. The arrest of a shadowy group of generals for allegedly plotting a bloody coup should be a victory for justice. The end of military meddling in politics should be a victory for democracy. And greater democracy should make a country more liberal and more pro-European."

Each of these sentences makes a false assumption and must be examined a bit.

Sentence one: Arresting military officers is only a victory for justice if they are guilty. Why does the author assume they are guilty? In fact, the claims are ludicrous. That a group of officers created a 5000 page plan for a coup that involved attacking mosques and massive attacks on civilians. It is one of a series of such accusations for which no real evidence has been presented, in which a widely disparate group of people have been arrested as alleged conspirators when their sole connection is that they are critics of the government.

This is ridiculously gullible. It's like the famous sentence by a newsweekly magazine that even if the Hitler diaries were forgeries (they were) that would tell us a great deal about the history of the time. If in fact the arrests were trumped-up to tame the army so that the current regime can impose a dictatorship in practice it was not a victory for justice but for injustice. Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, and Islamists in general lie a lot (and a lot more than democratic government) so why should they be taken at their word, especially when any serious examination of evidence shows the truth.

Sentence two: Of course, in general, keeping the army out of politics is a victory for democracy, but that ignores the specific history of Turkey. The army has viewed itself and been accepted there as the guardian of democracy. This history is certainly imperfect but when the country has been sliding into anarchy in the past or fallen into the hand of those who threatened to destroy the republic, the army has stepped in briefly, gotten civilians to reorganize things on a stable basis, and quickly gone back into the barracks.

The Turkish army is not like those of the Third World which hunger for power, destroy democracy, and unleash corrupt and repressive regimes. On the other hand, this article — and many others — show ignorance about the actual shifts in Turkey.

For example, there is no awareness that the regime is seizing control of the media; that the party leader (which means the prime minister for the ruling party) simply picks candidates for parliament as he pleases; that the reforms have strengthened the prime minister's power and not parliamentary democracy; and that women are being forced out of high positions. Merely weakening the army doesn't mean more democracy when in almost every other respect there is less.

Sentence three: If indeed-as is the case-the regime is systematically cracking down on the free media and imposing its control over all the institutions. This is not leading to greater but to less democracy. There should be a lot more reporting on what's happening within the country instead of just repeating the regime's claims.

Indeed, the author states:

"And with the last major obstacle to the ruling AK Party's power gone, Turkey's conservative prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, will be free to implement his vision of a more Islamic Turkey. More democracy, then, doesn't necessarily lead to more liberalism, either."

The assumption here is that this is what the Turkish people want. Yet it should be noted there are some big problems for that claim. Turkey's electoral system is so weighted that the AK has received near-monopoly control on the basis of a vote that in most parliamentary democracies would have produced a coalition government. Moreover, many or most Turks who voted for the AK weren't doing so because they wanted Islamism-as public opinion surveys clearly show — but because they thought (mistakenly, even according to this author) that it was a mildly conservative party.

And finally, the AK is seizing control over institutions so as to be sure that it will never lose another election. It is destroying Turkish democracy, a point made rather obvious by a long list of such actions over non-military institutions like the civil service, courts, and media. The author-and many others-are simply taking the regime's word for it and ignoring what the government is actually doing.

The author concludes by saying: "It's also clear that Turkey under the AK Party will remain a Western ally, and NATO will remain Ankara's most important strategic partner." Then, this unusually candid if wrong author explains:

"How do we know? The AK Party says so, and it has no real options. There's no rival alliance, not with Iran, the Arab world, or Russia, which could possibly rival the clout Turkey has, with the second-largest Army in NATO."

Of course, Turkey has options. And here is the option the regime has chosen: To keep as much as possible the Western alliances while the content of its policy favors radical Islamist forces.

Incidentally, this "no option" argument is the root of a huge amount of confusion in the Middle East. Supposedly, Iran has "no option" but to become moderate; Syria has "no option" but to dump Iran; the Palestinian Authority has "no option" but to make peace. Yet over and over again the local forces find an option that they are quite happy to pursue other than the one laid out for them by Western observers. They have their own view of the world, ideology, and goals (often the goal of the regime being to amass wealth and stay in power).

And one of the key factors in this process is that — rightly or wrongly — they think they are winning so why should they change course or make compromises? And certain other ideas are calculated into their list of options: soon Iran has nuclear weapons. And the divine being is on their side. And the West is weak, stupid, cowardly, and easily fooled.

Turkey is one of the main places they think they are winning, according to Syria and Iran.

Now of course, the Turkish government doesn't have to say: America stinks and we're pulling out of NATO. It can keep the benefits of these relationships, having their cake and eating it, too. But in practice Turkey is moving closer to Iran and Syria, with the leaders of both of these two countries openly pointing out that fact. The question is what does it mean for Turkey to be a Western ally in a practical sense? If it supports Iran, Syria, Hizballah, and Hamas, just how does Ankara function as a Western ally? It's meaningless.

So, the article concludes, "The world would be wise to side with the AK Party, not seek a return of the discredited generals." I'm not sure why the generals are supposed to be discredited by ludicrous accusations orchestrated by an anti-American (in practice) government which needs to destroy them. Rather, it is the current regime in Turkey that should be discredited.

Still, it's a pretty neat trick when a regime repressing Turkish democracy and increasingly siding with the enemies of the West can convince people in the West that this is a good thing.

Incidentally, the New York Times has only a slightly more nuanced editorial than the Matthews article. Among other things, it take at face value that the story about the military planning a coup was broken by a small "independent" newspaper in Turkey. Actually, that publication is a front from the regime and is most unreliable — a point one might expect the Times to have discovered. The story was part of the regime's strategy, not some journalitic scoop.

As the theme song to the television show "MASH" put it:

"The game of life is hard to play,
I'm going to lose it anyway,
The losin' card I'll someday lay;
So this is all I have to say...

"That suicide is painless...
And I can take or leave it if I please."

The Western world should reject playing that particular card as its strategy.

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

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 12, 2010.


Israel has proposed building a nuclear power plant in the northern Negev desert, to share electricity regionally. Israel hopes not only to relieve energy shortages without immediate pollution, but to cooperate with neighboring countries on it, to get them used to peaceable relations (IMRA, 3/10).

This is one of many gestures showing that Israel doesn't even have a hatchet to bury, it does not hate Arabs or other Muslims. Israel has a live-and-let-live philosophy. But Arab states or their populations more or less not only are dedicated to destroying Israel. They have ethical qualms about mere contact with Israelis. On the other hand, they favor murderers of Israeli civilians and deal with murderous regimes. How ethical is that? Their enmity against Israel really is religious rivalry rather than based on independent ethical issues.


Israeli warehouse bombed from Gaza on Biden's last day. Nobody called that offensive timing. (AP/Moti Milford)

"Biden said he originally thought the construction was to begin right away, but that after he heard from Netanyahu that it could be a matter of years before it begins, 'there is no reason not to resume the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.'"

"'The status quo is not sustainable,' Biden said, referring to the stalemate between the sides. He posited that Israel would be unable to remain a Jewish state while the Arab population continues to grow unless a Palestinian state is formed alongside it."

"The visiting Vice President praised Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), saying, 'President Obama believes in Abu Mazen and in the fact that the Israelis finally have a Palestinian leader who shares with them the idea of the establishment of a Palestinian state. This is an opportunity that must not be wasted.'"

"Regarding Iran, Biden said that the struggle against Iran's nuclear program is 'at the top of the priorities of the U.S. Administration. The United States is committed to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, period.' He said that the Arab nations that are concerned about Iranian nuclear power 'should promote the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.'" (IMRA, 3/10).

The Arabs are able to separate in their minds the two issues of Persian-Arab conflict and Arab-Israel conflict. Apparently, Biden and Obama are not able to. Nor have they been able to explain any logic to linking them.

Neither has the U.S. had any success in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Biden's assurance is not reassuring to those on the front line.

What good does it do the Israelis that Abu Mazen wants statehood, when he wants it the better to be able to destroy Israel? And since that is what his Fatah charter and his people want, doesn't that, among other reasons, disqualify them?

As for demographics, Biden's have been disproved. It still sounds impressive, so anti-Zionists retain it. However, the Jewish population is growing more than the Arab population, now. Proper border control, pro-active policies annexing Jewish areas of the Territories, and enforcement of property, tax, and riot laws would contain it.

Biden's remark that now he understands the housing situation acknowledges that he had sounded off prematurely. All that indignation by him and by the New York Times was misplaced. He is known among critics in the U.S. for hasty, foolish, and self-contradictory remarks. Remember, he and Obama first derided the planned "surge," then called it a failure, and now claim credit for it. One cannot trust politicians who will say anything at any time they think would advance themselves and their agenda. We should examine their agenda.


Rachel Corrie's parents brought a civil suit for damages in the death of their daughter by an IDF tractor. The government petitioned the court to dismiss the suit outright. Here is a review of the story.

The IDF undertook to clear out a terrorist emplacement in the Territories. It declared the area a closed military zone. It brought in two heavy bulldozers to uncover concealed bombs and terrorists.

A group of International Solidarity Movement (ISM) sympathizers of the Arabs came to protest. They were asked to leave the combat area. They refused. The IDF tried to disperse them by means of loudspeakers, stun grenades, tear gas, and warning shots, but they remained and tried not just to demonstrate but to interfere with military operations. Rachel Corrie sat down about 60 feet in front of the path of one bulldozer.

IDF investigation later proved that the bulldozer driver had a limited field of vision. He could not have seen her. Nor was he directed from outside, this time, because of the danger to an outside signaler from terrorist attack. The bulldozer proceeded. Corrie stayed. She fell and the bulldozer piled debris on top of her. Her associates ran over and did attract the attention of the bulldozer driver. He backed off. She still was conscious. Taken to the hospital, she died.

The government contends that she violated military orders in order to share in a hostile and sometimes violent protest. She willfully risked her life on her own, in a combat zone, and that the government had no intention of causing her death and, in its military action, no culpability in it (IMRA, 3/11).

I understand that a movie has been made of her that ignores the key facts here, in order to blame the government.


The New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief, Ethan Bronner, attributed much of President Obama's unpopularity in Israel to racism. He was being interviewed by Chris Matthews, TV host of "Hardball," on 3/11.

Matthews asked Bronner to explain Obama's unpopularity there. Bronner attributed most of it to Obama's seeking to gain popularity in the Muslim world at Israel's expense. He thought some might be due to Obama's Muslim upbringing, which he soft-pedaled as his "background." Then he added a sense that "there is some degree of racism."

Bronner gave no evidence for this "sense." (For original article, click here It was sent via ZOA, 3/11.)

The cry of "racism" is an old demagogic smear. It is an attempt to disparage and cow opponents. It often is used to cover up one's own prejudice or incompetence. What proved more racist than the Obama campaign, whose supporters, including the New York Times, suggested that if one doesn't vote for Obama, one is racist. The Times did not suggest that blacks, who overwhelmingly supported Obama because of shared race, were racist. It would be understandable if outsiders resented being mistreated like that.

Obama or his policies have become unpopular all over, as his inexperience, opportunism and stubborn radicalism fail and as it becomes plain that he cannot avert collisions with adversarial foreign interests. He has contradicted himself, misstated history, and misunderstood issues. Naturally he is more unpopular in Israel, where he has made more peremptory demands that they stop defending themselves, stop living normally, and cede part of their national patrimony to existential enemies who also are existential enemies of the U.S.. Many of my articles went into this.

Israel has dry-farming expertise it has shared with other countries, including African ones. Whereas most foreign aid experts used to advise from comfortable offices, Israeli experts got out onto the farms and worked the soil side-by-side with Africans. Hardly a racist outlook.


Emulating terrorist leaders Arafat and Abbas, Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan was reported in a Saudi newspaper as claiming that al-Aqsa Mosque, the Cave of the Patriarchs, and Rachel's Tomb "were not and never will be Jewish sites, but Islamic sites." Arafat's goal was to undermine the Jewish claim to statehood by erasing its history there and substituting a false Arab history.

Arafat did not explain why the Hebrew Testament mentions the Temple Mount, on which that mosque subsequently was built, almost 700 times, and the Koran does not mention it at all. Neither did PM Erdogan explain how the Jews memorialized the Cave and Tomb for three millennia, but the Arab claim to the Cave came many centuries later and the Arabs ignored Rachel's Tomb until a few decades ago.

In some Arab countries, after the Arabs forced most Jews to leave, the Arabs obliterated all traces of Jewish history there and all mention of it. That more than balances the non-forced flight of Palestinian Arabs from Israel, but most people are not aware of it. Notable exceptions to a policy of erasing Jewish history are Morocco, Tunisia, and Egypt. The Palestinian Authority is not an exception, nor was Jordan when it controlled eastern Jerusalem. Both destroyed synagogues.

By contrast, Israel respects Muslim authority in al-Aqsa and Muslim religious access to the Cave (Prof. Steven Plaut, 3/11).


The IDF steadily investigates allegations of improper military conduct in Gaza. One rule is not to use civilians in military operations, especially in dangerous ones. Today it indicted two sergeants for unauthorized practice in combat there. Suspecting that some bags to have been booby-trapped, the pair are accused of having asked a boy to open them, while they were searching a building (IMRA, 3/11).


A delegation from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations met with PM Fayad of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). At the meeting, Alan Solow, head of the delegation, complained that the P.A. retards peace, because its Fatah charter requires armed struggle with Israel, it refuses to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, and its leaders honor families of slain terrorists who had murdered innocent Israeli civilians and destroy produce because it was produced by Jews in Judea-Samaria. [Fayad was one of those leaders.]

"The PA wants a progressive state, democratic, which doesn't tolerate discrimination, which is open, culturally sensitive — including to our Israeli neighbors,' Fayyad said,"

Morton Klein, chair of the Zionist Organization of America, replied that Fayad and the P.A. are "unreconstructed supporters of terrorism and not genuine moderates and peacemakers."

Klein, whose headquarters are in New York City, told "New York Times bureau chief Ethan Bronner that the Times all but ignores incitement in the official Palestinian media and the perceived endorsement by the Palestinian leadership of anti-Israel terrorism, while reporting extensively on allegations against Israel." (3/10 press release from ZOA, of which I am a member.)

Mr. Klein judges Fayad by his actions on the ground, not by his words to Western ears.

In ignoring official P.A. incitement and encouragement of terrorism, the Times has something in common with the State Department.


The Israeli Air Force demolished a weapons smuggling tunnel and a weapons factory in Gaza. The IDF said the raid was in retaliation for a rocket attack on a kibbutz the day before (Arutz-7, 3/12).

This one incident is typical. It shows a failure in Israeli security policy. By waiting for an easily recognized justification for retaliating, Israel let Hamas smuggle and manufacture more weapons. More Israelis were endangered. The government would make Israelis safer by destroying all weapons tunnels and arms factories it knows about, instead of keeping a list for minor tit-for-tat retaliation.

Why does Israel restrain itself from lawful military self-protection? Israeli regimes are defeatist and do not try hard to defeat the enemy nor advance Jewish national claims, beyond a little talk. They also seem oversensitive to foreign criticism. It does not occur to them that the critics would denounce Israel no matter what it does. That is the nature of European bias, a non-fact-based, irrational phobia akin to antisemitism.


"Sweden's parliament narrowly approved a resolution Thursday recognizing the 1915 mass killing of Armenians in Turkey as genocide." In retaliation, Turkey recalled its ambassador to Sweden (Wall St. J., 3/12, A15).

Earlier news involving Sweden was that an American women was caught plotting to murder a Swedish artist who mocked Islam's prophet. The artist admitted intending mockery. He contends that any public figure is subject to mockery.

Gratuitous insults and futile gestures abound, but action to prevent or stop ongoing mass-murder is scarce. See, for example, my next article, March 13th.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 12, 2010.

U.S. Government Sponsored Palestinian Ministry of Tourism brochure rewrites history/presents map which deletes Israel

The U.S. government, via the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has provided support for a glossy 39-page "Palestine Guide Book." Just released by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Tourism, it declares on its first page, "Palestine lies between the Mediterranean Coast and the Jordan River." Not until Page 10 are we informed — under the heading "Country" — that "Palestine comprises the West Bank and the Gaza Strip."

No discrepancy here. Rather, a clear message is intended: While the "country" is restricted to certain areas, "historical Palestine," to which Muslim Arabs lay claim in its entirety, is much larger. That impression is reinforced by the Historical Map of Palestine on the last page, which shows Palestine from the river to the sea.

Under "Capital," there is a single word: "Jerusalem." This flies in the face of the official Palestinian Authority (PA) position that it seeks "East Jerusalem" as its capital.

What the PA offers here, as fact, is a vision of the country that it anticipates soon will be. Yet its underlying premise — that all area beyond the Green Line belongs to the Arabs of Palestine and will soon make up their state — is fallacious. That this booklet is founded on factual misrepresentations should not surprise. The PA is well-acquainted with the psychological truism that a lie told often enough will be believed.

A backward look provides insight into where the fallacies lie:

The League of Nations' 1922 Mandate for Palestine — allocating Palestine for a Jewish homeland — incorporated as integral parts both the West Bank and Gaza. As the mandate has never been superseded in international law, they remain areas to which Israel retains considerable claim.

When Israel declared independence in 1948, the Arab League attacked. At the war's end, Jordan controlled the West Bank, and Egypt controlled Gaza. Palestinian Arabs controlled neither of these areas. The line behind which Israel found herself — roughly what is called the Green Line — was not a final border, but an armistice line, understood by written agreement to be temporary.

After the Six-Day War of 1967, during which Israel secured control of the West Bank and Gaza, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 242. It spoke of Israeli withdrawal from "territories," but not all territories. Implicit was recognition that the Green Line as border would not provide security for Israel. In no event was Israel required to withdraw prior to negotiations. No reference was made to a Palestinian people or Palestinian state.

So how did we arrive at the present situation, with the PA boldly pretending, absent negotiations, that a country of defined parameters exists?

The Palestinian Authority — an "interim self-government authority" — was established by the 1993 Oslo agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). This accord called for final status negotiations based on Resolution 242.

There is no reason to assume that the Green Line was to become Israel's final border (i.e., that all of Gaza and the West Bank would lie beyond Israel).

According to Oslo, the status of Jerusalem, the status of settlements (which were not deemed illegal) and final borders were all to be discussed during final status negotiations.

The PA, awash in internal politics that are neither moderate nor conciliatory, has been displeased consistently with negotiations — despite some extraordinarily generous offers. It thus suits the PA to create "facts" unilaterally, making its case to the international community rather than at a negotiating table.

This booklet promotes fallacious positions that defy a major U.N. Security Council resolution and a written agreement between Israel and the PLO — both of which require negotiations for determination of final status for Palestinian Arabs.

It is unsettling to see the USAID logo on the back cover, but it is no accident. Magdouline Slameh, head of the PA Ministry of Tourism Department of Materials and Translation, expressed gratitude to this writer for the wonderful support provided by USAID.

She said her staff wrote the booklet in close cooperation with the USAID offices in Ramallah. Arlene Kushner is Senior Analyst for the Center for Near East Policy Research in Jerusalem. Contact her at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

This appeared March 12, 2010 in the Washington Times
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/12/ rewriting-history-on-the-taxpayer-dime/

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, March 11, 2010.

We are the Secular Christians for Zion (SC4Z). We request our media to study the message forwarded by Naomi Ragen (below). As secular Christians and Americans, we are the majority, silent no more.

We are disgusted with the US State Department's slavish obedience to the Saudis. The latter have even gone so far as to brag how easy it is to sway US policy and gain influence over our politicians, especially with respect to their aims in the middle east.** The Saudis would gain enormous political and financial power if they could somehow gain sovereignty over Israel. It's clear they don't care how they get it and they don't care what international treaties and laws must be ignored or breached. Through their actions they have made it clear that they will use every means to acquire either use or control or outright sovereignty over the Jewish Homeland. Study your geography. See that nice port of Haifa? How nice it would be for the Saudis to have it all to themselves, thereby gaining control over the Mediterranean shipping lanes and the Suez Canal.

For your information, the boundaries of the Jewish Homeland were established under international law during the 20s and the US is bound by treaty to uphold the law. See: Prof. Howard Grief's seminal treatise on international law: "The Legal Foundation of the Borders of Israel under International Law." Available at www.amazon.com

According to established international law, and recognized as such by the first monarch of Saudi Arabia (Abdullah), the boundaries of the Jewish Homeland encompass the entire region now improperly referred to (for political and psychological convenience) by the Arabs and the US State Dept. as "the West Bank". Israel correctly refers to the region as Judea and Samaria. Jerusalem has always been recognized as the capital of the Jewish Homeland and this is so regardless of the waverings and muddled equivocations of the politically ambitious Polish immigrant to Israel, Shimon Peres, and the conflict and muddy waters he not so single-handedly stirred up with respect to Israel's sovereignty over its land. Peres garnered plenty of help from Euro-NGOs and even the Saudis who are wont to operate through layers of NGOs.

The Arabs are slowly and illegally seizing control of the Jewish Homeland by getting our State Dept. functionaries to help them forward their unlawful, treacherous, but cleverly sophisticated schemes. Most of the Saudis forwarding their ambitious schemes stand, intellectually speaking, head and shoulders above good ol' Joe Biden. As for good ol' Joe, it comes to mind just how feverishly he beavered for Clarence Thomas, such that the latter was seated on our Supreme Court. (FYI — thanks in major part to our good ol' Joe, Thomas, now resting comfortably at Scalia's side, helped Roberts and Scalia usher in the recent ruling that overturned a hundred years of constitutional restraints upon corporate interference in political elections. Now, thanks to our Supremes, foreign-controlled US corporations can now contribute their funds to any election that might serve their interests, not ours.

Now good ol' Joe is shooting his mouth off about a US ally, Israel. He apparently has been swayed by the fantasy that awarding yet another state to the arab imposters (who suddenly began to call themselves "palestinians") will become an Islamic state that will align itself with the US should the oil-state-controlled UN next decide to drop its hammer on the US. Yehrite.

The Saudis have gained far too much influence over the US State Department. If you question this, or wonder how the Saudis managed to gain such suasion, get yourself a copy of Craig Unger's book: "House of Bush — House of Saud" which details "how the Saudis did it" — — and so easily that the former Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar, was wont to brag: ** "If the reputation builds that the Saudis take care of their friends when they leave office, you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office."

This below is from Naomi Ragen (nragen@netvision.net.il)



The headlines in Israel during Mr. Biden's visit are making me angry. First, his statement that Israel's announced plan to build 1,600 housing unit in East Jerusalem "undermines peace."

What peace is that? The Arab "piece" plan, where Israel turns over more and more "pieces" of land to Palestinians who can then turn them into "terror-tory," as they did with Gush Katif? Mr. Biden, you come here declaring that the Israeli and Palestinian sides are 'not that far apart' and only Israel's policies are holding peace from breaking out, "endangering American soldiers," as one headline put it.

Are you for real?

You tell Israel not to attack Iran, and expect six million of us to wait patiently as the current American administration pussyfoots with healthcare while an A-Bomb is aimed at our heads. And ISRAELIS ARE ENDANGERING AMERICANS? Are you for real?? Nothing on the Palestinian side has changed since the lies of Oslo and yet you fully expect Israel to give up sovereignty over her capital, Jerusalem, in exchange for ....what?

I would like to remind Mr.Biden of the following Congressional resolution, April 24, 1990:

"House Resolution Expressing Support for Jerusalem as Israel's Capital Whereas the Stat