LENS, LIES AND VIDEOTAPES Posted by Ellen W. Horowitz, May 31, 2004.

For they have directed evil against You and have concocted schemes they cannot carry out. (Psalm 21) "In one simple word: This is Hiroshima 2004," said Rafah Mayor Saed Zourab in an interview after viewing the Tel Sultan neighborhood last week. (The Associated Press) The deputy-mayor of Rafah, Omar al Naga, has urged the international community, particularly the European Union, to treat Israel as a "a Nazi state" following the recent concatenation of atrocities and home demolitions in southern Gaza, which left hundreds of civilians dead and injured..."Israel committed Nazi-like atrocities in my city. Gestapo-like crimes were perpetrated in Rafah by the Israeli army. The world must condemn this holocaust and treat Israel as a Nazi state...Our infrastructure has been completely destroyed. We need many years to recuperate from what happened." (The Palestine Information Center) Gosh Mr. Mayors, this all sounds mighty serious, but somehow the numbers and accusations just don't figure. Let's start with the people: Hundreds of thousands perished in Hiroshima and millions were systematically exterminated in the Holocaust. Sixty years ago, educational, religious and cultural institutions; centers of science and industry; transportation and infrastructure, as well as entire cities lay in ruins throughout Europe and Japan. Now before we access the damage done to your town, let's review the profile of Rafah which appears on the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities site. In the section called places to visit, the city of Rafah is prominently featured on a page all its own. The following is the text in its entirety (there are no pictures): Located on the southern tip of Gaza, Rafah is a Canaanite town described as Rafia by the Greeks and the Romans. The town has some ancient mosques and archeological sites, including a mosaic floor. Rafah's beach is beautiful, offering sand dunes and date palms. After an unprecedented influx of financial and humanitarian assistance pouring into the PA from the UN, EU, US, Israel and numerous independent sources over the past several years, Rafah boasts of ancient ruins and they bluster over current ruins. They do, however, have date trees (Thank G-d for that). What kind of slaughter and infrastructure damage did the thriving cultural and industrial metropolis of Rafah have to endure which requires "many years to recuperate?" It seems the Israeli Defense Forces killed 41 terrorists. True, terrorism is Rafah's main export and industry. Israel also inflicted damage on your booming underground activities, by destroying some of the elaborate subterranean transportation infrastructure which is used to smuggle sophisticated weaponry from Egypt. In the process of discovering three of those tunnels and navigating through booby-trapped and explosive-laden neighborhoods, Israel destroyed 56 homes. There is an investigation pending with regards to 14 civilian casualties and we'll get to that. It was a military operation for sure, and yes there was some confined destruction. But what took place in Rafah surely doesn't rate as genocide nor does it compare with the aftermath of an atomic explosion. Why would a purported nation want to feign or orchestrate their own holocaust. Is it not and aberration to aspire to catastrophe? On one hand it would seem impossible to actualize this base fantasy - unless, of course, the foreign press, EU, UN, international courts and humanitarian agencies were in collusion with the Palestinian Authority. Sound far fetched? Well for starters, the UN's vehicles and ambulances have been conscripted to kidnap soldiers, steal body parts and smuggle terrorists and weapons. Rather than adhering to even the most basic of ethical standards, the international media's photojournalists behave like they're on some macabre fashion shoot for a high-gloss edition of Morbidity and Mortality. While perusing the online photo archives of Reuters, I couldn't help but notice that the same corpse of a child was repeatedly photographed with different people carrying it. Was it staged or candid? I really don't know, but deliberate or not, it does give the illusion of additional casualties. Suspicions are raised even further now that IMRA disclosed that two Palestinian children who died in the Rafah procession incident were murdered by Palestinian gunmen and that the IDF photographed the shooting. If you doubt the authenticity of this report, please note that it was first reported in Haaretz by Amir Oren on May 21st. Meanwhile in the oft photographed morgue, a lone child is repeatedly photographed in different locations of the room as he sits over assorted groupings of bodies. A spontaneous photographic opportunity or was it posed for propaganda purposes? Another morgue picture taken by the same photographer features a teenage brother and sister who were supposedly gunned -down by IDF troops. But an initial investigation indicates that their deaths were caused by an explosive device planted by the Palestinians. The photojournalists are a rather homogeneous bunch -hardly representative of an international press core. These are the names of the photographers and photojournalists from AP, Reuters and AFP who covered the action for the Palestinian side of the street in Gaza these past two weeks: Mohammed Salem, Suhaib Salem, Mohamed Azakir, Goran Tomasevic, Khalil Hamra, Adnan Hajj Ali, Nasser Nasser, Hussein Malla, Lefteris Pitarakis, Ahmed Khateib, Salah Malkawi, Abbas Momani, Said Khatib, Mohammed Abed, and Awad Awad. Perhaps more and more reporters like James Bennett, who narrowly escaped a kidnapping attempt on May 19th, realize that the natives are no longer that friendly. So it seems that the news agencies have no choice but to issue press cards, lap tops and Nikons to the locals in order to get a story -any story - even fiction. (Just a note to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Rafah: During the Holocaust, we Jews were issued yellow stars and tattoo numbers, but camera equipment, film and assault rifles were off limits to us). Yes, I know that two of those photojournalists names sound a bit Greek or perhaps Serbian, which brings me to Goran Tomasevic of Reuters. Goren shot a whole series of old ladie -in-the-rubble pictures last week, which seem to have left a lasting impression on Justice Minister, Tommy Lapid. Tommy, these people are compiling an erroneous version of a Holocaust memorial album and you fell for it. Your carelessly chosen words are now being circulated throughout the world and are causing Israel untold damage. As a painter I can tell you that there's nothing like trying to capture the classic solitary figure in a moment of existential pain and loneliness. It makes us all realize how very vulnerable we are. Photo opportunities that expose the precarious human condition are, unfortunately, easy to come by in this world of ours. But Gaza is a crowded place and surely the old women have relatives, grandchildren or friends to help them gather their belongings. This was not a Caribbean flood, where entire families had been swept away. But then again, Gaza is a very cruel place and perhaps the other family members can't assist grandma, because they are busy preparing for martyrdom or the next Hamas parade. Or maybe the family is really there, but the photojournalists didn't want to spoil the moment. Go to http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Photo_Op.asp for an honest look and judge the media's role for yourself. Check out the hand in the lower left-hand corner which holds back the man who appears to be headed to assist the old woman, who may or may not be crying real tears. There are little kids in the area too, but all of those cameras will end up portraying the lone Palestinian women who stands against the fence with a convenient graffiti message in English. Which brings me to Lefteris Pitarakis of the Associated Press. He filed a report on May 22nd which made world-wide headlines: Child Shot in Gaza As Incursion Continues : A 3-year-old Palestinian girl was shot and killed in this refugee camp on Saturday, the fifth day of Israeli searches and house demolitions that a senior U.N. official condemned as "completely, completely unacceptable." The article clearly implies that Israelis did the deed, but buried midway through the piece, we see a rather ambiguous sentence: A 3-year-old girl was shot dead Saturday in the camp's Brazil neighborhood, from which troops had withdrawn the day before, Palestinian hospital officials said. Relatives said Rawan Mohammed Abu Zeid was killed by a gunshot to the head as she walked to a shop. The IDF wasn't in the area, which means that Palestinians shot their own. Was it a friendly-fire incident or intentional? I don't know- but remember we're dealing with an enemy that straps suicide belts to their own children, as their mothers pray daily that their offspring will be martyred. Once again, the photo archives were filled with numerous pictures and angles of the dead child in the morgue and at burial. Mr. Pitarakis or some sharp bureau chief at AP must have picked up on that disturbing little inconsistency, because by May 23rd the offending sentence had been removed and it read like this.... A 3-year-old girl was killed Saturday in the Brazil neighborhood while Hansen's delegation was in the area. Relatives said Rawan Mohammed Abu Zeid was killed by a gunshot to the head as she walked to a shop to buy candy. Journalists and photographers who cannot be accountable have no credibility, except in the eyes of those who are either blind or evil. It seems that everybody's watching, but nobody's really seeing. The Palestinian Arabs are killing their own, and this is clearly the mark of Cain - killing his own brother and not accepting responsibility for his actions. As a punishment, Cain becomes a perpetual refugee. Statelessness is his destiny and neither the media nor the international courts and arenas will be able to overturn that decree. Prophets of demographic doom should think again, as your theories and statistics are vacant. We're far more likely to see the Palestinian Arabs self-destruct than to watch them strike permanent roots in our land. As for our military, well I always cringe when they apologize. But then I realize that the Israeli army is humble, contrite and accountable -in addition to being an excellent fighting force. Those are the qualities that will ensure our ultimate victory and keep us in possession of our Land. Self-inflicted Genocide. I suppose we will need to coin a new phrase (or perhaps one exists) for a people who are bent on using every method available to systematically destroy themselves. Rather than assist in our quest for truth, digital, video and computer technology often overloads our minds and obscures our vision. Contemporary photoshop tools in combination with journalistic deception will make a lot of evidence and claims impossible to authenticate and judge. Is the Iraqi Wedding video authentic or forged. Who knows? In today's world, justice is blind, as are our Justice Minsters (take note, Tommy). Which is why those who are interested in seeing and seeking the truth will eventually have to look inward and/or to the heavens. Because, the final verdict belongs to the True Judge. Ellen Horowitz lives in the Golan Heights, Israel with her husband and six children. She is a painter, columnist for Israelnationalnews,com and co-founder of helpingisrael.com. She can be contacted through her website http://www.artfromzion.com To Go To Top

SUE THE BARSTIDS! Posted by Beth Goodtree, May 31, 2004.

As in industry and commerce, a name can be everything. If someone in industry tries to use an established name, they get sued ten ways to Saturday (or Sunday). Well, 40 years ago someone stole a 2,000-year old name and claimed it for their own. Time to sue them, get them to cease and desist, recover damages, and set the record straight as to who is whom, who comes from where, who they are, and when they came. In other words, time to take back our names, our lives and our history. (Or as my mom, who avoided swearing the way she avoided insects would say, "Sue the Barstids!") We have trademark laws to prevent the theft of an established name. This is to stop some new-coming usurper who might try to trade on the good reputation and history established by an existing entity and thereby ruin the original owner of said name. And these trademark laws are not limited to the US; they are international. Because this theft of which I speak is unique in the annuls of history, there is no direct precedence. However, there is much case law regarding similar situations. And in law, similar situations may be used to extend a law which does not cover new or evolving circumstance. Take as an example the brand name and trademark 'McDonald's.' Everyone knows this as a chain of fast food restaurants with a certain style of service and type of food. Recently, a man named McDonald, with no affiliation to the restaurant chain, opened a store that he called 'McDonald's. Even though his store was not in competition with the fast food chain, even though he used his own name for the store, even though he wanted nothing associated with the McDonald's food chain, he was forced to stop calling his place of business 'McDonald's.' Now suppose some outside rogue group who wanted recognition, money and territory squatted on some sparsely populated land on the outskirts of the country of Iraq. Then they began calling themselves 'Sumerians' and their land 'Sumer,' while claiming to be the original Iraqi people from ancient times. While this may seem silly, this is exactly what was done in another place way back in the 1960s (although the roots of this theft began in the 1940s). The land that is now called Israel was, for 2,000 years, called Palestine. Although that was not its original name, it became the common accepted name of that land and the people living there.* And the people living there were the Jews (also called Hebrews) who had a history associated with that land going back many thousands of years prior, as well as a continuous presence. (Certainly no Muslims lived there because Islam is a late-comer in the world of religion and didn't even enter the scene until 4,300 years after the start of Judaism and 600 years after the Jews living in Palestine became known as 'Palestinian.') All during the past 2,000 years, there has never been an Arab country called Palestine. Nor have Arabs been known as Palestinians -- they have merely been known as 'Arab,' mostly because until the last century when oil became a commodity, they were nomadic tribes living a primitive life of following their flocks without regard to boundaries or the higher civilized concepts of governance, borders, etc. The Jewish homeland was always called Palestine (for the past 2,000 years) until the founding of Israel in 1948. However, by naming the new country 'Israel,' the name and history of Palestine and the Jewish people did not suddenly go up for grabs to the loudest, most violent, and biggest lying thief. And there are laws to protect such thievery, although no one has yet used them in this context. "Palestine' and 'Palestinian' can be considered similar to trademarks in that they refer to the name of a specific people as well as the products of that people -- a religion, an ethnicity, a culture, and a history. And international law does not require a trademark to be legally registered. The first one to use a name and to have its use be continual is the one who has proprietary rights to said name. Which brings us to the names of 'Palestine' and the 'Palestinians.' Since the Jews were the first, by 2,000 years, to continually use the appellation 'Palestine' and 'Palestinian' we have the rights to those names and all that they imply. And lest anyone think that the term 'Israel' has replaced such usage, it has not. As long as there are books in print and being printed that still refer to Jews as 'Palestinians,' and the Jewish homeland as 'Palestine,' this covers the 'continual usage' requirement. So it is long overdue for the Arabs who are falsely and dishonestly using the name 'Palestinian' to cease and desist, and pay a penalty to include all the monies and land they have garnered through the criminal theft of the name and the history of the original and only Palestinians: the Jews. And if they have no idea what to truthfully call themselves, one of their own said it best. Zahir Muhsein, Executive Committee member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said the following in an interview with the Dutch newspaper "Trouw" March 31, 1977: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism." In truth, those people now occupying Israeli land in Gaza, Judea and Samaria are just your average, common Arab, parasitically reaping the benefits of the stolen name and history of the Hebrew people. And even if the UN puts forth a mandate calling them the 'original' people, or the people who now 'own' the name, they cannot rewrite reality, legislate the truth, or negate centuries-old international law with an Islamist agenda and a swipe of the pen. *Even some of our older citizens still refer to Israel and the Jews, synonymously with Palestine and Palestinian. This point was hammered home to me when I adopted our dog. He came to America via Hong Kong, having been born in the Middle East. When I inquired as to where he was borne, I was told 'Palestine.' Upon further inquiry as to where, the original owners then said 'Israel.' Beth Goodtree is an award-winning writer, with a background in advertising. She writes political commentary and the occasional humor and science articles. To Go To Top

A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS? Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, May 31, 2004.

Plans are reportedly under way to build a Palestinian casino/resort in "Southern Gaza" where the Jewish communities of Katif now reside? It is an important point to remember that lawyers generally represent people. That is they hide the real persons behind the activities. Maybe now we can guess who is behind this casino in Gaza idea? Could it be anyone else other than the Generalissimo Sharon himself? Is that why he is so anxious to destroy the lives of thousands of Jews in Gaza and endanger Millions of others in Israel; so he can make his Billions of Dollars from a Gaza casino? Is such a thing believable? Yes! http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=63268 The following report was filed by David Bedein, bureau chief of the Israel Resource News Agency. It appeared in Arutz-7 (http://www.israelnationalnews.com). In December 2002, Israel Resource News Agency publicized the fact that Dov Weisglass the office manager and the long time private law counsel of the Prime Minister, was still listed in the Israel Corporate Registrar as the owner and operator of his law firm, Weisglass-Almagor. This finding was publicized in the weekly newspaper, Makor Rishon. That law firm in the past represented the financial interests of the PLO, through Muhammad Rashid, the treasurer of the PLO appointed by Yasser Arafat. That same law firm currently represents prominent Palestinian business interests, such as the Palestinian casino company which is in part owned by Jibril Rajoub and by Yasser Arafat. According to the Palestinian tourist publication THIS WEEK IN PALESTINE, plans are under way to build a new Palestinian casino and resort for tourists in "Southern Gaza". Is it a coincidence that this is where the Jewish communities of Katif now reside? In January 2 003, the spokesman for the Israel Civil Service Commission affirmed the finding that Weisglass was indeed still registered in the Israel Corporate Register as part of that law firm, but dismissed its importance, since Weisglass has divested himself from all financial interests in that firm. The Israel Civil Service Commission did ask that Weisglass go through the formal process of removing his name from the firm. A check with the Israel Corporate Authority in April 2003 showed that Weisglass' name had indeed been removed from the law firm in the Israel Corporate Authority and provided a document from the Israel Corporate Authority to prove it. However, it has now been confirmed by the Israel Corporate Authority that Weisglass is still registered as the lawyer of record for two other firms that bear virtually the same company name, located the same addresses and with the very same lawyers. One of these law firms where Weisglass remains registered is a business with a wide mandate to engage in local and international business. The other firm where Weisglass is active is, indeed, a law firm On May 11, 2004, the spokesman for the Israel Civil Service Commission wrote that Weisglass had divested himself of his law firm and had sold the shares of his business. Upon examination of the publicly available Israel Corporate Authority records of the Weisglass business, there is no record of any Weisglass activity to divest from this second law firm nor from his business. A spokesman for the Israel Prime Minister said that Weisglass has not been active in his law firm nor active in his business since entering office in April 2002 The facts speak otherwise. Questions remain: How much profits did Weisglass' law office and business accrue from Palestinian Authority interests before and after Weisglass assumed his position? What are the current profits of Weisglass' law office and business from Palestinian Authority interests? Is there a possibility of a conflict of interest, at a time when Weisglass conducts negotiations on behalf of the state of Israel with all official levels of the Palestinian Authority? These questions need to be addressed by the Knesset, the Attorney General, the State Comptroller and by the Israel Civil Service Commission. 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

SAUDI ROYALS CAN'T KEEP SHIFTING BLAME Posted by IsrAlert, May 31, 2004.

This article was written by John R. Bradley and is archived at http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/ story/0,4386,253758,00.html The writer, now with The Straits Times' Foreign Desk, is a former managing editor of the Jeddah-based Arab News and author of the forthcoming book, "Saudi Arabia Exposed: Princes, Paupers & Puritans In The Wahhabi Kingdom" (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, March 2005). UNTIL recently, whenever a news article appeared in the Western press discussing Saudi Arabia, terrorism and Saudi Interior Minister Prince Naif in the same breath, the latter's name would be followed by the sub-clause, 'who denied for six months after the Sept 11 attacks that they had involved any Saudi nationals'. The fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept 11, 2001 had been Saudi nationals was crystal clear once the fog cleared, and such denials became absurd - especially when accompanied by vague allusions to a 'Zionist conspiracy'. When Prince Naif admitted that Saudi nationals had indeed been involved, his frankness corresponded only to a new state of denial regarding sleeping terror cells inside Saudi Arabia. According to Prince Naif, there simply weren't any. Nor were there Saudi extremists. How times have changed. Since the May 12 Riyadh bombings last year, when extremists carried out a series of coordinated attacks on Western residential compounds, there have not been enough hours in the day for Prince Naif to express his hatred of home-grown terrorist cells, which have clashed with his internal security forces on an almost weekly basis. They have lost more men to the militants, and killed more of the militants themselves, than any other security force in the world. The Al-Saud family's new resolve in dealing with the militants with an 'iron fist' was reinforced during the recent hostage drama in Khobar, during which militants killed more than a dozen Saudis and foreigners, before being killed or captured themselves. Alas, consistency has never been a factor in Saudi domestic politics, and Crown Prince Abdullah, the kingdom's de facto ruler and a moderate, is now blaming 'Zionists' and 'followers of Satan' for recent terror attacks. 'We can be certain that Zionism is behind everything,' he said after the attack on Yanbu that killed five Westerners. The Crown Prince's chief ally, Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal, also a moderate, has since criticised the United States-led war on Iraq as a 'colonial' adventure aimed only at gaining control of Iraq's natural resources. While that argument could be made quite strongly by anyone else, it is a bit rich coming from any member of the Al-Saud family. During the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia secretly helped the US by allowing operations from at least three air bases, permitting special forces to stage attacks from Saudi soil and providing cheap fuel. The American air campaign against Iraq was essentially managed from inside Saudi borders, where military commanders operated an air command centre and launched refuelling tankers, F-16 fighter jets and sophisticated intelligence-gathering flights. Why all this musical chairs? Prince Naif changed his tune about the non-existence of extremism in Saudi Arabia partly because of pressure from the West. Before the Iraq war began, everyone seemed to be talking about how Saudi Arabia would be targeted for regime change after it ended. He was also partly motivated by the bombings in Riyadh and subsequent terror-related events, which left him with little choice but to face reality (especially as he had become a prime target). It was in the context of the Iraq war, too, that the so-called 'reform process' was initiated by Crown Prince Abdullah and Prince Saud. But now, Prince Naif is telling the reformers he is busy arresting when not cracking down on militants that he is acting on the orders of Crown Prince Abdullah. And the latter is refusing to meet those reformers, despite the fact that he had earlier accepted public petitions from them. It is now obvious that the 'liberals' in the Al-Saud family had merely been buying time with their 'reform' agenda, while arch-conservative Prince Naif's prime concern in finally acknowledging the Al-Qaeda threat was how to save his own skin. Historically, the ruling family has been a force for modernisation and liberalisation. But when it initiated earlier reforms, for example under King Faisal in the 1970s, it was in the process able to consolidate its power base, and that of the Wahhabi religious establishment it still rules in partnership with. It was the middle of the oil boom. What members of the ruling family have to do now, to save the kingdom from civil war, is sacrifice their infamous perks and their unchecked power, in the middle of an economic crisis, and for that, there is no historical precedent. The Iraq war has descended into chaos, and the immediate threat of a US invasion of Saudi Arabia has passed. The oil price hike has reminded the world of how catastrophic an Islamic revolution in the kingdom would be. So the Al-Saud royals are back to blaming Israel for everything that goes wrong in the kingdom, and attacking the US for executing a war that could not have been launched without their assistance. What neither the ageing royals nor the equally clueless Bush administration realised, however, was that their secret partnership during the Iraq war, though banned as a subject for discussion in the Saudi media (and largely ignored in the American media), was common knowledge to any Arab who surfed the Internet or tuned in to Al-Jazeera; and that the aid, denied by Defence Minister Prince Sultan then in the name of Islam, would become the primary catalyst for the subsequent violence. The Saudi royals are being punished for allowing the US to invade Iraq from Saudi Arabia's holy soil, and being outright liars about the fact in the name of a religion they claim to be the protectors of. Attacks like those in Yanbu and Khobar are likely to become more frequent in the lead-up to the first partial elections next February, which will give minimal power to municipal bodies that will, in any case, have no real power. A statement purported to be from the Al-Qaeda chief in Saudi Arabia, posted on a website last Thursday, urged his followers to continue an urban guerilla war of assassinations, kidnappings and bombings. Two days later, one cell acted on his command. There are many, many more waiting in the shadows. IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is hosted by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com To Go To Top

PETER HANSEN OF UNRWA Posted by David Frankfurter, May 31, 2004.

After the Jenin "massacre," Peter Hansen, the commissioner-general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) told a Danish newspaper, the Internatavisen Jyllands-Posten, on April 19, that 300-400 Palestinians had been killed in Jenin. He told CNN: "I had, first of all, hoped the horror stories coming out were exaggerations as you often hear in this part of the world, but they were all too true" (CNN, April 19, 2002). We all know that Peter Hansen simply repeated the lies, acting as a mouthpiece for the Palestinian propaganda machine. He deliberately and maliciously promoted the myth of an Israeli massacre of civilians. When the truth was revealed, even Palestinian sources agreed that the body count was 54, that the deaths were largely of armed militants and were the result of a fierce battle and booby trapped houses that the Palestinians had deliberately contrived to occur in a residential neighbourhood - in contravention of the rules of war laid out in the Geneva conventions. When the truth was revealed, I do not recall any apology or retraction from Hansen. In fact, to this day, the UNRWA website has an interview with Hansen which, although it does not repeat specific numbers, has Hansen agreeing with the "fact" of "Israeli war crimes against the Palestinians" and implying promised UNRWA support for any legal case the Palestinians may wish to raise for the issue. It is not that the words 'retract' or 'apologise' are strangers to Hansen - for this is what he demanded this month that Israel do for the "baseless charge" that UNRWA ambulances in Gaza had been abused by terrorists. Without speculating on the reasons for the Reuters' videotape of the incident was not broadcast around the world, the tape was screened last week, on Israel's Channel 10. A picture from that tape of armed gunmen boarding the ambulances can be seen on the IDF website. UNRWA schools are a hotbed of incitement to terrorism. It is the place that many a child gains his initial indoctrination to hate the Jews. UNRWA teacher academies very carefully instruct their teachers how to present all aspects of the Middle East as having no legitimate Jewish or Israeli history or presence. UNICEF Executive Director, Carol Bellamy, is paying her first visit to the region since taking her post in 1995. She has suddenly discovered a concern Palestinian for children, and their education toward terror. "UNICEF," we are told, "has repeatedly called on both sides to do more to protect children from violence." Of course, this did not stop them from funding, along with UNRWA, summer camps, sporting teams and other activities which were used to promote terrorism amongst their young charges. One has to wonder whether any UN institutions are worthy of our support. As one of you pointed out, and I confirmed with a phone call, all Sheraton Hotel guests in Israel are encouraged to make a $1 donation to UNICEF at check out. Around the world, the Starwood hotel chain, which owns the Sheraton brand name, allows a choice of UNICEF, The Make A Wish Foundation, and The Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International. Both of the alternate foundations have operations in Israel. Maybe you would care to suggest to Sheraton Israel that they switch. Send an email to Sheraton hotels, using the following form http://www.starwood.com/sheraton/contact/email.html. Ask them to pass on your concerns to all their hotels - and to UNICEF. David Frankfurter is a writer on economic affairs in the Middle East and a regular contributor. To Go To Top

TEHILLIM REQUEST Posted by Shoshana Shamberg, May 31, 2004.

Dear Friends and Family This is an urgent request for prayers for the recovery of a little girl who has been fighting cancer for awhile but this week had a major relapse and is back in the hospital in Baltimore, MD and the situation is very bad. Her name for prayers is Odalia Chaya bat Gitta Sara. Her mother has requested that everyone who prays take on an extra mitzvah in her name such as tzadakah, visiting a sick person, helping someone in need, calling up someone to tell them you love them, anything to bring compassion into our world in this little girls name for healing. PLEASE PASS THIS EMAIL ON TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE!!!!! Thanks for this holy mitzvah SHabbat Shalom Shoshana To Go To Top

DUAL LOYALTY AMONG WHOM? Posted by Eilas Yrachmiel, May 31, 2004.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg is Founder and Director of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy in Israel This article appeared on the Netzah Yisrael Lo Yeshaqer website (http://netzahyishrraeolorg/blogger.html). It is archived as http://www.netzahyisrael.org/dual_loyalty.htm Senator Ernest Hollings (D-South Carolina), writing in the Charleston Post and Courier, has accused President George W. Bush of ousting Saddam Hussein to protect Israel, and that other Jewish officials and pundits are to blame for the present war in Iraq. Senator Hollings, who has a record of making anti-Semitic remarks, named Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Charles Krauthammer as the Jewish culprits. And so once again American Jews will be accused of "dual loyalty." Frankly, I have to laugh, both at Senator Hollings and at any Jew who reacts defensively to Hollings and his anti-Semitic canard. If the Senator is concerned about "dual loyalty" among American Jews, I suggest he first examine the phenomenon and consequences of "dual citizenship" among American immigrants, which is widespread in the United States. The first thing to be noted is that, as concerns these immigrants, dual citizenship constitutes a violation of American law! U.S. Code section 1448(a) prescribes the following oath for all naturalized citizens - suffice to mention only two clauses: "I do solemnly swear (1) to support the Constitution of the United States; (2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen." The law has simply been ignored. Millions of foreign-born Americans in 2000 were also citizens of another country. Dual citizenship is also at odds with the American Constitution. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This clearly implies, as Samuel Huntington points out, that Americans can be citizens of only one state and can vote in only one state, even if they have homes in two states. In contrast, under existing law and practice, whereas Americans can be citizens of two countries, with residences in Santo Domingo and Boston, and can vote in both American and Dominican elections, Americans with residences in New York and Boston cannot vote in both places! Moreover, dual citizens can run for and serve in elected offices in two countries! In fact, dual citizenship encourages ampersands not only to remit tens of billions of dollars to their relatives, localities, and businesses in their country of origin, but to help finance the campaigns of their homeland politicians. Talk about "dual loyalty"! The truth is that many American-born Hispanics, especially Mexicans, do not identify with America or American culture but rather with the culture of their homeland. In one 1992 study, when children of immigrants in Southern California and South Florida were asked, "How do you identify, that is, what do you call yourself?" - among Mexican American children born in the United States, only 3.9 percent responded "American" compared to 28.5 percent to 50.0 percent of those born in America with parents from elsewhere in Latin America. Hence it is not surprising that, in one study, a representative example of the American public viewed Hispanics as less patriotic than Jews, blacks, Asians, and Southern whites (like Senator Hollings). Now consider the Hispanization of Miami. By 2000 Spanish was not just the language spoken in most homes, it was also the principle language of commerce, business, and politics. But since language is the medium of culture, no one should be surprised that Miami has become a culturally Hispanic city. Indeed, by the late 1980s the Cubans in Miami had created their own banks, businesses, media, and voting blocs, which dominated the economy and politics and from which non-Hispanics were excluded. "They're outsiders," as one successful Hispanic put it. What has occurred in Miami is occurring in the Southwest, most significantly in Los Angeles. In 2000, 64 percent of the Hispanics in Los Angeles were of Mexican origin, and 46.5 percent of Los Angeles residents were Hispanic, while 29.7 percent were non-Hispanic. In 2003 for the first time since the 1850s, a majority of newborn children in California were Hispanic. Many identify themselves as Americans; many do not. I have been drawing this data from Huntington's "Who are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity". Perhaps Jews concerned about the canard of "dual loyalty" should send Senator Hollings a copy of this wonderful book. Post-Script: Above - I criticized Senator Ernest Hollings (D-South Carolina) for questioning the loyalty of American Jews, indeed, of accusing them of being responsible for America's war in Iraq. Professor of Law Ya'acov Golbert asked, why isn't Senator Hollings concerned about the loyalty of Moslem immigrants to America, who, he says, "actively hate America and American culture and political system, have contempt for the American people and institutions and actively seek to supplant it with an Islamic state. Ironically, the very thing the anti-Semites have always accused the Jews of is what they are getting in the form of another group of Semites - the Semites they deserve. Do we hear about dual loyalty as to the Islamic "citizens?" Not from the likes of Hollings. Then there is the question of the dual loyalties of former diplomats posted to the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud takes good care of its friends and all of them remain good friends of the Saudis, spouting the Saudi line publicly and defending the Saudis from all attacks. And it is not only the Saudis. James Abingdon "served" as consul general in Jerusalem, where he was enthusiastically anti-Israel and pro-"Palestinian". He retired from the foreign service and became a lobbyist and the PR agent for the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, earning US$3 million a year. Why isn't Hollings concerned about their loyalties?" Another example. William Fulbright was one of the most energetically and consistently anti-Israel members of the US Senate. He was also the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. He was finally defeated for reelection by Dale Bumpers and immediately registered as an agent of the government of Saudi Arabia as their adviser and lobbyist, same as James Abingdon. It raises the question whether Fulbright always represented the House of Saud while he was a Senator but that question is never raised by people like Hollings (or General Zinni). Irish-Americans overwhelmingly side with the Catholics in Northern Ireland and, in any case, against the Brits. Greek-Americans overwhelmingly favor the Greek Cypriot position. Both groups are active and supportive of their chosen side in the conflict. And of course, Arab-Americans actively support the "Palestinian Cause" politically and raise money for pro-Palestinian groups, including terrorist organizations. Yet it would be unseemly, even bordering on racist, to question their loyalty to the US. (Prof. Ya'acov Golbert) Good questions! Professor Ya'akov Golbert and Elias Yrachmiel are co-directors of Netzah Yisrael Lo Yeshaqer. To Go To Top

THE JEWISH "THEOLOGIAN" FROM WACO Posted by Steven Plaut, May 31, 2004.

Slightly edited versions of these two reviews appear in the Spring 2004 issue of Middle East Quarterly. (1) Review of Marc Ellis, "Out of the Ashes: The Search for Jewish Identity in the Twenty-First Century," Pluto Press, London, 2002 Reviewed by Steven Plaut The first hint one has of the real orientation of this atrocious little book, which purports to be a theological re-examination of what it means to be Jewish after the Holocaust, is that the only people Ellis and his publisher could find to endorse the book on the jacket are members of the Terrorism Lobby: Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, and their ilk. Not a single Jewish theologian. Nation, the Far Left anti-Jewish American political magazine, recently praised the book's call for Israel to be eliminated, while expressing dislike for the fact that Ellis thinks religion still has some positive roles to play in the 21st century. Need we say more? That is about as much a work in theology as is New Age drugs-and-Marxism Tikkun Magazine, a venue where Ellis feels right at home. Ellis is University Professor of American and Jewish Studies at Baylor University, a Baptist School in Waco, Texas. This is the same Waco we all recall as the home of some other peculiar forms of theology. Ellis has a long track record of using his Center there to proliferate leftist agitprop and Israel-bashing materials. This poorly-written book, the latest in the series of Israel-bashing propaganda tirades published by Pluto Press, is little more than a vicious anti-Israel broadside. The only thing of value that Ellis thinks Jews should derive from their experiences during the Holocaust is an unambiguous denunciation of Israel and total support for the demands and agenda of the Palestinians. For Ellis, Israel is the embodiment of all that is evil and all that is wrong with Judaism today. His concept of Israel is of a bunch of bullies riding about in helicopters and firing at poor innocent Palestinians for no reason at all (an image repeated ad nauseum in the book). Ellis' Israel is a belligerent selfish entity mistreating and enslaving the Palestinians as part of some sort of grand pursuit of the goals of the Jewish settlers in the "Palestinian" territories. While I did not test it with a computerized word count, I would wager that the word "bully" juxtaposed next to "Israel" is the most common word combination in the entire screed. Ellis apparently has never heard of the Oslo "peace process" and speaks about Israeli conquest and occupation of the Palestinians as being "complete", this a decade after Yitzhak Rabin and Bibi Netanyahu turned most of them over to the PLO's tender rule. Ellis makes it clear that he only feels comfortable with his fellow Jews when they are being victimized. When they stand up to defend themselves, they lose their Jewish soul and their legitimate right to exist. In his zeal to delegitimize Israel (he speaks blissfully of the "post-Israel era"), he goes even further than the "Rabbis" of Tikkun magazine, which Ellis lists as the greatest of ethical institutions in the Jewish world, and approaches the views of crackpot Norman Finkelstein. Like Finkelstein, Ellis thinks the Holocaust has been utilized by the Jews as a gimmick to grasp power and oppress the poor Arabs. The only real lesson Ellis wishes us to learn from the Holocaust is that Israelis are behaving like Nazis and that Jews who assist the Palestinians in achieving their aims are ethically equivalent to those few Germans who rescued Jews in World War II from the Gestapo. According to Ellis, Israel's original sin was to utilize the Holocaust as an excuse to occupy "Palestinian" land. Israel's existence is not justified by Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. The only "massacres" of any Holocaust-relevance are those Israel perpetrates. Jenin and Deir Yassin (neither of which was in fact a massacre) are the moral equivalents of the Holocaust of the Jews, insist Ellis. Ellis is openly contemptuous of any talk about Jews being in need of any national empowerment. Such things constitute "Constantinian Judaism", to use Ellis' term, which is nothing more than conscripting religion to serve the agenda of the militarist state and of those evil malicious "settlers". Jews can only fulfill their ethical role in history, which - Ellis is persuaded - is to promote socialism and leftist fads, if they are stateless and suffering. While crying his eyes out over the "inhumane" treatment of the Palestinians, Ellis never finds time in his discussion of the theological implications of the Holocaust to discuss the mass murder of Jewish children by his Palestinians. Jews certainly have no right to ride around in helicopters to prevent such things. Nor is he willing to acknowledge that any "mistreatment" of Palestinians, such as assassinating their leading terrorists, might have anything at all to do with the atrocities committed by the Palestinians. In a book supposedly about the lessons of the Holocaust for the Jews, there is not a single word about the Nazi-like demonization of Jews by the PLO and its affiliates, nor the calls for genocide against Jews. Ellis rejects even the political positions of Israel's Far Left. He is contemptuous of claims that Ehud Barak's offer to the Palestinians at Camp David II in 2000, in which Barak offered the PLO absolutely everything, was generous, not to mention suicidal. The offer did not come even close to what Ellis insists Israel must do, which is to cease to exist. Ellis is a passionate endorser of the "One-State Solution," also known as the Rwanda Solution, in which Israel will simply be eliminated as a Jewish state and will be enfolded within a larger Palestinian-dominated state that stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan river. This insists Ellis, is the ultimate realization of the Jewish ethic mission. Ellis' explicit motivation for writing this book is that he got drubbed rather badly in a debate a few years back in New Zealand by Prof. Yossi Olmert, brother of the previous Mayor of Jerusalem. Olmert had the chutzpah to defeat Ellis mercilessly in argument. Hence Ellis opens his book by viciously stating that Olmert is the moral equivalent of Yigal Amir, the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin. He denounces Olmert as a bully because Olmert bested him in the debate. No doubt all of Israel also became a bully because it refuses to adopt the program for self-destruction advocated by this "theologian" from Waco. (2) Review of David Grossman's "Death as a Way of Life: Ten Years After Oslo", Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, NY, 2003 Try to imagine that one of those many people in Britain who had lauded the Munich Accord as a great breakthrough for peace and who were certain Hitler would never violate it had decided to publish his old articles, singling praises for Munich - printing them after World War II. Or imagine someone republishing his old Op-Eds from the late 1980s about how the Eastern European Soviet system was here to stay - as a new book in 2003. Well, if you can imagine such a thing, you have a pretty good picture of David Grossman's new book. Grossman is one of the more extreme members of Israel's Literary Left. He has published quite a few novels, and is regarded as a gifted writer of fiction. (Not by me, but then I am only an economist so what do I know about such things.) But Grossman also spends many a waking hour in turning out political agitprop and Far Leftist Op-Eds for the newspapers of Israel, the UK, Germany and France, including some of the worst Israel-bashing outfits. Grossman suddenly has decided to collect some of these moldy Op-Eds and recycle them as this book, and Farrar, Strauss and Giroux for some incomprehensible reason thought it could make them a few bucks. What we get are almost a score of Grossman's silliest and worst-written Op-Eds. Even worse, these pieces have been so thoroughly belied and debunked by actual events that one would have expected anyone with a minimal sense of shame to have buried them in his clippings box and never again make public mention of them. We have Grossman's early pieces singing the praises of the Oslo "peace process" and beatifying Yitzhak Rabin for his "courage" in establishing the foundations for a Palestinian state. Grossman repeatedly celebrates the fact that Arafat has abandoned his ambitions to see Israel attacked and destroyed, and clearly has renounced the so-called Palestinian "right of return". Palestinians, insists Grossman, are downright embarrassed when they read the irredentist contents of the PLO's "Covenant". Embarrassed indeed. Hardly controlling his ecstasy at the Rabin-Arafat handshake, he gushes: "I have always believed that when Israel agrees to grant this right (of self-determination) to the Palestinians, it will also win it for itself." How inconvenient for Grossman that Israel spent the past decade granting such a "right" and got 1300 murdered Israelis in exchange and nonstop war. Grossman does not feel the slightest shudder when exhibiting for us all his political cluelessness. He reprints his old piece about the Palestinian boy Muhammed al-Durrah killed in a firefight started by the PLO, a piece attacking Israel and Ehud Barak. He neglects to mention anywhere that it has since been learned that the boy was in fact killed by PLO fire. Grossman reprints his appeals to Palestinian writers and intellectuals, "ALL" of whom - he insists - seek peace with Israel (p.22), to condemn the violence. Grossman then sighs when they never do, but fails to contemplate the possibility that these folks just might be ENDORSING the jihadniks and murderers. While the Left's "concepts" turn out to have been completely wrong, one after the other, about absolutely everything in the era of the Oslo Euphoria, Grossman just gets irritable and insists Oslo collapsed because the Left was not stubborn enough and militant enough and extreme enough. After predicting that Prime Minister Ehud Barak would never offer the Palestinians any land in one of the reprinted Op-Eds, Barak then offered the PLO virtually the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip, an immediate state, parts of pre-1967 Israel, financial tribute, and East Jerusalem with the Western Wall. Being progressive means never having to say you are sorry. The PLO then launches the "Al-Aqsa Intifada" in response to Barak's offer. Naturally, Grossman sees the collapse of Camp David II as somehow all Israel's fault. Now while Grossman is possibly the most extremist among Israel's Literary Leftists, even HE dismisses out of hand any possibility of any Palestinian "right of return" to pre-1967 Israel. But that is precisely the little detail over which Ehud Barak's insane offer at Camp David failed! As my teenagers would say, Like Duh. Grossman never draws the conclusion from his own rejection of the PLO's insistence on a "Right of Return" that the PLO is seeking war and violence - not coexistence - always was, in spite of its posturing when Rabin was still around. Nor does he ever dwell on the meaning of those polls showing near-universal support among Palestinians for suicide bombings and atrocities against Jews. While throwing a couple of his pieces on the Holocaust into the volume, the only real lesson Grossman has learned from the Holocaust is how unwaveringly devoted today's Far Left must remain to their delusions. Grossman, who even today "understands" why the Palestinians loath Israel (page 7), also "understands" the PLO when it tries to smuggle in the Karin A ship of terror weapons (in another reprinted Op-Ed, p. 156), and unwaveringly believes that leftists never have to apologize for being wrong about just about everything they say or write. There is one redeeming aspect to this pathetic little book and that is its ability to serve as an interesting personal documentation of the delusions and fantasies of the Israeli Left, which directly produced the Olso Bloodbath. In the only new part of the book, Grossman writes a bland preface in which he admits he is no journalist at all, and then explains how it is quite understandable that Arabs wish to follow aggressive, bellicose leaders. How embarrassing for Grossman that this was written shortly before the Iraqis took to slapping Saddam's posters with their sandals. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. To Go To Top

THIS IS THE ENEMY Posted by Women In Green, May 31, 2004.

This was written by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz and appeared in Arutz-Sheva yesterday. [WARNING: The following contains graphic descriptions of violence.] Nick Berg, an American from Philadelphia, was kidnapped and tortuously beheaded by Arabs in Iraq sometime in May. The murderers filmed the deed and proudly displayed the victim's severed head. After killing six Israeli soldiers in an attack on an armored vehicle in Gaza on May 11, the Arabs near the scene of the carnage gleefully held aloft human body parts in front of rolling cameras. One of the Arab terrorists was later interviewed on film with what appeared to be a human head in front of him. The week before, after shooting at Tali Hatuel's car, causing it to skid and stop, Arab terrorists walked over to the vehicle to finish the occupants off. They looked at the heavily pregnant mother and her four no-doubt frightened girls; the youngest was two years old. And then shot them all. At point-blank range. With sadistic satisfaction, they systematically murdered Tali Hatuel and her unborn son, as well as all of Tali's daughters - Hila, age 11, Hadar, 9, Roni, 7, and two-year-old Meirav. In Fallujah in March, crowds of townspeople dragged four American civilians out of their vehicles, shot or beat them to death, mutilated their bodies, dragged them through the streets, suspended them from a bridge and burned them. And they danced and cheered. With their children. In Ramallah in 2000, two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, beaten, stabbed countless times, had their eyes gouged out, and were literally disemboweled and dismembered by an Arab lynch mob. The people - and I use the term loosely - who carried out the initial beatings threw one of the victims down to the waiting mob, where his face was further crushed with stones, feet, fists and even a heavy metal window frame. One Jew was set on fire and dragged along the street as Arab onlookers danced and cheered. Some of the butchers celebrated their crimes with the victims' internal organs. One of the killers, famously captured on film, proudly displayed his blood-soaked hands to the cheering Ramallah crowd. And it gets worse. In 2003, nearly two years later, Arab parents in Gaza cheered again when their little children dressed up as members of the Ramallah lynch mob, complete with hands painted blood red, for a kindergarten graduation ceremony. According to a report by Dr. Michael Widlanski, an Israeli Arabic expert, the Voice of Palestine called the attack on the Hatuel girls "an act of heroic martyrdom". The targeted children and their mother, the PA radio reported only as "five settlers". Among the participants at the funerals of the Hatuel family members was President of Israel Moshe Katzav. He said, "This day of blood will be engraved in our history. An earthquake has happened. No one in the world can stand apathetically by in the face of these acts by such evil people. Where are those who speak in the name of Allah?" National Review contributing editor David Frum posed the same question in his May 12 "Diary" on NRO: "Where are the imams?" he asked. Some of "those who speak in the name of Allah," Mr. President, were busy sawing Nick Berg's head from his body in Iraq. "Allah is great!" they shouted in triumphal glee as they killed their bound and helpless victim. The imams are in the mosques, Mr. Frum, waving swords and exhorting their followers to behead a Jew: "Allah willing, we will cut off his head! Oh Jews! Allah is great! Allah is great!" They are also in Saudi Arabian palaces, telling their subjects that they are 95% certain Zionists are behind Islamist terrorism. They are also writing for the Arab media, explaining that Jews are behind all the evil in the world. And they are even organizing soccer matches, Mr. President, honoring mass murderers. This is the enemy. Don't look away. Perhaps when another rally is held in support of Iraqi "resistance" or "Palestinian liberation" somewhere in the world, counter-protesters can remind the ever-so-sensitive and progressive demonstrators of Nick Berg's scream of pain, or of two-year-old Meirav Hatuel cowering in her car seat, or of the Ramallah or Fallujah savages dancing with human entrails. During the lynch of the two IDF soldiers who had taken a wrong turn into Ramallah in 2000, one of the Arab murderers paused in his savage beating to answer a cell phone belonging to one of the dying soldiers. He told the worried voice on the other end of the line, "We are killing your husband." There is a Talmudic dictum that states, "One who is merciful to the cruel, will ultimately cause cruelty to the merciful." It seems to me that we, Israelis and Americans, have proven the Talmudic sages absolutely correct. Please, no more mercy. Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org To Go To Top

A SHORT VERSION OF "PALESTINIAN" HISTORY Posted by Dafna Yee, May 31, 2004.

If an Arab identifies himself (or herself) as a 'Palestinian,' they are openly endorsing the 'Palestinian cause'. The PLO Charter states what this comprises very succinctly; the 'Palestinian cause' is nothing less than the total destruction of Israel. There is no room for compromise in that document; the founding document of the PLO does not even leave room for the possibility of two states side by side! So many people seem to be so determined to be 'fair' to both sides of the conflict that they automatically deny good things about the Jews and dismiss any distasteful information about the Arabs. They refuse to admit that both sides are NOT equally committed to Western philosophies of 'fair play'; in fact, the entire concept is foreign to the Arab culture. When the Jews came to Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th century, they found it as backward and neglected as every other territory of the Ottoman Empire. The Turks did not build hospitals, major roadways, or sewage systems anywhere! In fact, it was the British who established these things throughout the Middle East, but the first hospitals that they built came many years after Hadassah Hospital was established. It is not widely appreciated that when the Jews established Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, it was the first and for many years the ONLY hospital in the entire Middle East; indeed, some people have expressed outright disbelief of this historical fact. The major reasons that the Jews were welcomed in Palestine by the British AND the Arabs was that they brought money and skills -- and improved health care -- to an area that was grossly deficient in every modern aspect of those things. This was not uncommon; many rulers throughout the centuries had welcomed Jews because their money and skills were desirable (at least until later rulers expelled them). The Arabs themselves only began to have a national identity -- separate from the Turks and Europeans -- in 1903 (please note that this was AFTER the Zionist Conference in Basle, Switzerland)! Territorial borders within the Ottoman Empire were very fluid; just as they were in Europe throughout history. For more information on changing borders, please see Historical Maps at: http://www.epsaweb.org/historic_maps.htm For example, the border between Egypt and what became the Palestine Mandate was determined when the British sent forces to occupy Taba and much of the Sinai in 1906. At that time, of course, the British were very much involved in empire building in the Middle East, as well as everywhere else. (The exact dates for that bit of Middle East history may be found at: http://www.bartleby.com/67/1347.html.) Recitation of these basic facts about the important early Jewish contributions to the Middle East is often met with disbelief. The skeptics do not realize that their disbelief is a direct result of the Arab propaganda campaign against Israel. In fact, the Arab propaganda machine has been so successful that their enemies as well as their supporters accept many of their historical myths for both themselves and the State of Israel. There is a strong tendency among fair and reasonable people to project their sense of fairness and reason onto others, so that when presented with shocking facts about Arab aims and intentions, they will dismiss the facts as mere interpretation. Widespread acceptance of Arab mythology also results in favorable writings about Israel often being dismissed as exaggerated Zionist propaganda. However, no one has to 'interpret' what the Arabs' intentions are; THEY STATE THEIR OBJECTIVES OUTRIGHT! When someone who is considered to be pro-Israel states that total destruction of Israel was the reason that the PLO was established, indeed that it is the very purpose for it existence, too many people assume that such a statement is, at best, an exaggeration made out of 'loyalty'. Nevertheless, the PLO spells out their philosophy very clearly and succinctly in the PLO Charter as well as thousands of documented statements. It would be a good idea for everyone to read the PLO Charter -- which was 'ratified' at the Rabat Conference in 1974 -- before disregarding 'pro-Zionist' information; a good site for the actual document is: http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm (BTW, this might be an Israeli website site but the document was taken in its entirety from the Palestine Research Center in Beirut.) Moreover, the ONLY reason that the other Arab rulers -- especially Jordan's King Hussein -- agreed at the Rabat Conference to give over the West Bank to Arafat and the PLO was to have a base to destroy Israel, and Arafat convinced them that he could do it through the use of 'negotiations' and pretending to want peace. The collective Arab armies had failed to do so just the previous year, when they attacked Israel on Yom Kippur. (See the transcript of the Rabat Conference at: http://countrystudies.us/jordan/16.htm) That is why the PLO charter is written the way it is; to convince the Arab rulers of the PLO's potential force to eradicate Israel once and for all. (It didn't need or receive the approval of the Arab people themselves as the Arab countries are not democracies.) For more statements by the PLO and its followers, please see: http://www.iris.org.il/quotes.htm. Two excellent sites where one can learn exactly what the Arabs are teaching their children are: http://www.serve.com/lordgovernor/children/ and http://www.pmw.org.il/. An important contrast to these sites would be one which contains a poll of what Israeli teenagers want out of life that is found at: http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/ The_True_Face_of_Israeli_Youth.asp The Arab rulers have NEVER been interested in the fate of the masses of Arab people! (For that matter, most of the world is not interested in what happens anywhere when Jews are not involved.) Yet people all over the world accept the improbable notion that the Arab rulers were suddenly so concerned with the most despised Arabs of all -- those who lived in 'Palestine' -- that they decided to establish a new country just so the 'Palestinians' could be 'liberated'. These rulers did not even make that claim at the Rabat Conference; it was not until they put the idea before the UN that they dressed up their plan in pretty-sounding words. Unfortunately for Israeli victims of continued 'suicide bombings', the fact that the words that they give to the Western media are directly contradicted by their continued terrorist actions - as well as their own documented statements - makes no difference in people's willingness to believe the Arab propaganda and to reject any contradictory statements if they are perceived to be 'pro-Zionist'! It is not as if any 'Palestinian' leader has been looking out for the welfare of the Arabs in the disputed territories. In fact, part of the Rabat Conference 'deal' was that Jordan would continue to pay for municipal works and civil servants; this went on until 1988 when ISRAEL AND THE UN took over the expenses of keeping up the infrastructure. (Unfortunately, Arafat and his cronies have pocketed most of the money; what they haven't hidden away has been used to buy arms.) In the early 70's, the 'refugee camps' still resembled other small communities in Israel (although they are like slums -- not concentration camps -- today). Residents did NOT live behind barbed wire and no one needed to get permission to go in or out (this was true until three years ago when the latest intifada started.) In fact, they were a lot better than the Jewish refugee settlements (a great many Russian Jews were arriving then) because the Arab administrators of the camps received outside money -- a LOT of money -- from the UN to keep them going. In fact, they were a lot better than many American slum neighborhoods. Instead of the money being spent on infrastructure, though, the money was and is spent on hate indoctrination of their young people. That is the reason that the Arabs in the disputed territories live in such miserable conditions; their own leaders are cheating them! It is NOT because of the Israeli 'occupation' or the building of Jewish 'settlements'! Both of those commonly given (and too often accepted) reasons for Arab violence are as much a part of the deliberate Arab propaganda campaign against Israel as the rest of their 'history'. I will be glad to provide further corroborating evidence for any of my statements both in this article or any other of my writings. All anyone has to do is ask. However, please do not assume that I am just saying these things out of 'loyalty to the Zionist cause'; I find that assumption highly insulting both to the quality of my research and the integrity of my scholarship. Dafna Yee is director of Jewish Watch Dog (JWD). Its website address is http://jwd-jewishwatchdog.home.comcast.net To Go To Top

WHY CLEVER PLANS WON'T FIX THE MIDDLE EAST Posted by Barry Rubin, May 30, 2004.

The main causes of problems, goes a witticism, are solutions. Many readers have reacted to my columns by raising two questions: --How do I suggest the Middle East's issues can be fixed? -- Can I offer hope or belief that this can be done relatively fast? This is the first of a two-part column in response. Why is it wrong to demand "plans" that will "solve" the region's problems? Why do the careers of such "clever" people prosper while others pay with their lives for their failings? Why is time such a crucial element in making things better? The problem is that the "quick-fix" mentality has repeatedly made the region's situation become far more confused and generally worse. Ideas which seem sensible and obvious to their often-ignorant, sometimes prejudiced creators merely try to fit complex problems created by deliberately obstructive extremists into a reality-distorting framework of neat plans, cool gimmicks, and external responsibility for their problems. There have been enough such simple solutions already. Within the region, the main panaceas have been pan-Arab nationalism and radical Islamism. Both have failed miserably. The local ideologies have brought intoxicating intellectual addiction, powerful dictatorships, and demagogically driven publics, while killing the possibility--or even the very idea--of achieving progress through serious rethinking, structural change, hard work, and gradual development. Outside observers have pressed the notion that Israel's existence is the root cause of regional problems and so it should be eliminated (an idea contained in both "local" philosophies) or pushed fast and foremost for Arab-Israeli peace (as in the Oslo plan). When Westerners agree that the true root of the problem is the evil-doing of the United States and Israel it only intensifies this dominant system's stranglehold as European bashing of Israel and the United States encourages Arab and Iranian hardliners to fight harder and longer as well as making everyone else in those societies believe that this is the right approach, morally proper and leading to inevitable victory. Those who more correctly perceived that the real problem was caused by the dominant dictatorships and ideology in the region have then leaped to the idea that this roadblock could be dissolved by overthrowing regimes and replacing them with democracies (which led to the Iraq war). "Good" people were ruled by "bad" dictators. Remove the villains and the grateful masses will demand moderation, rights, and peace. Have any of these ideas contributed toward making the region better? In considering the damage done by well-intentioned folks who want to make everything right, let's focus on three big disasters: the Oslo process's material failure, its public relations' disaster and encouragement to subsequent extremism, and the recent effort to make the region democratic. Oslo process: In 1991, the PLO was badly weakened, having lost much Arab and Western support due to its long intransigence and backing for Saddam Hussein. Thanks to the Oslo process, it gained control over most of the West Bank and Gaza people and land. The organization received huge amounts of funds--much of it embezzled for political purposes--and built large military organizations. Aside from formal recognition of Israel (a controversial matter causing at least temporary internal splits), it made few sacrifices, irreversible commitments or efforts to implement its promises. The whole affair ended with the United States and Israel trying to push negotiations forward faster to "liberate" the Palestinians from occupation while Arafat opposed this effort. The greatest hasbara disaster in history: Why, many ask, did international attitudes turn so sharply and fiercely against Israel, even raising antisemitism to the highest point since the 1930s? While there are many factors involved, I would suggest the most important reason lay in the reinterpretation of the conflict engineered, ironically, by Israel and the United States during the Oslo process. Before that time, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was seen along familiar lines of external aggression and subversive terrorism trying to destroy an existing state, Israel. But Israel, Jews around the world, and the United States explained throughout the 1990s that the Palestinians simply wanted their own state and an end to occupation and if offered this would make peace. "Obviously," since it was inconceivable that anyone would reject such benefits the world concluded that the true bad guys would not really give them that alternative. Paradoxically, Israel's approach of taking risks and offering concessions for peace ended by transforming the paradigm to the equally familiar one of an evil occupying force brutally suppressing a people that simply wanted self-determination. The issue was no longer seen as extremist aggressors ruthlessly trying to destroy a smaller victim but rather as imperialists and colonialists greedily trying to oppress others. Iraq war 2003: Deciding that the region's deadlock needed a solution, various people--who almost all knew little or nothing about the Middle East--came up with the idea of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and installing a democracy in Iraq. They made foolish analogies to Germany and Japan after World War Two, disregarding little things like nationalism, Islamism, terrorism, the power of the existing Arab system to distort anything, xenophobia, ethnic hatreds, lack of local democratic experience or forces, and a dozen other issues. Yet there can be no doubt that if Senator John Kerry is elected president, one of the main criticisms of Bush will be that he did not solve the Arab-Israeli conflict and loud demands will be made on his successor to come up with a plan to do so within a year. But sometimes, contrary to many people's yearning for peace and stability or the ability of some to come up with new plans, progress or solutions simply take lots and lots of time. Next week, we'll discuss another aspect of the problem--the adversary's strategy--and the best available responses. Professor Barry Rubin is Director of The Global Research in International Affairs Center (GLORIA) and Editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA). To Go To Top

MENACHEM BEGIN'S CHOICE Posted by IsrAlert May 30, 2004.

This article was written by Danny Rubinstein and appeared today in Ha'aretz. It is archived at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/432861.html Every proposed Israeli plan for the evacuation of the Gaza Strip considers the fate of the Israeli homes and facilities to be left behind. This includes the homes of residents of the various communities, public buildings, water networks and electricity grids, the Erez industrial zone, workshops and agricultural facilities and military installations. All of them sprawl across a large area (Israel today controls almost one-third of the area of the Gaza Strip) and are very valuable. Now that a unilateral Israel plan is under consideration, with no negotiations, without an agreement and perhaps even with no coordination with the Palestinian Authority, many believe that all of these assets will be razed. Various spokesmen for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his aides recently confirmed this. The idea of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists doing a victory dance atop the settlers' homes stir disgust - certainly among those opposed to the withdrawal. At every discussion on the matter, mention is made of the actions of Sharon, then the defense minister, at the time of the complete bulldozing of the homes in Yamit and Rafah, when Israel withdrew from there in 1982. The withdrawal then took place when peace prevailed, on the basis of the treaty with Egyptians, who were on the verge of paying $80 million for the Israeli structures. Why then was such a barbaric act perpetrated at that time? Last week, the book L'lo Shulhan Agol (Without a Round Table) by Moshe Sasson, Israel's ambassador to Egypt at the time, came out. Among its interesting chapters is one relating to why we destroyed Yamit and other nearby places. Sasson writes that contrary to the prevailing public opinion, it was not Ariel Sharon who decided to bulldoze the Yamit bloc after its evacuation. It was the personal decision of Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Urgent matter Sasson describes the following sequence of events: Three days before the withdrawal date, Yehiel Kadishai, the prime minister's secretary and confidant, phoned him in Cairo and informed him that Begin wanted to consult with him on something that could not wait. He immediately traveled to Jerusalem and went to the prime minister, who asked him: What would Mubarak's reaction be if we totally razed Yamit and the surrounding settlements? Ambassador Sasson was stunned. After all, there was already an agreement with Egypt stipulating payment of $80 million for the buildings there. Why suddenly leave behind scorched earth for the country with which we signed a peace agreement? Sasson was also surprised because during an earlier stage of withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula to the Ras Muhammad-El Arish line, the Israeli military installations there were left behind intact. The order to do so was issued by Ezer Weizman, who was the defense minister before Sharon, and Begin had approved it. Begin explained to Sasson that when Sharon began evacuating one of the settlements, the residents returned at night and infiltrated into their homes. They were reevacuated and this occurred repeatedly. Begin was convinced that the settlers would sneak back into their homes even after the Israel Defense Forces withdrew from the area and, therefore, bloody clashes could evolve between the Egyptians and the settlers. Sasson told Begin that razing Yamit would be a serious disappointment for the Egyptian leadership, especially Mubarak, whose aides had prepared buses and a list of Egyptians who were to go to Yamit and move into the settlers' homes. Ambassador Sasson returned to Cairo for an immediate meeting with Kamal Hassan Ali, who was the deputy prime minister and foreign minister. He made it clear to the Egyptian minister that Begin's decision was final and could not be changed. Kamal Ali told him that it would be very difficult to explain what had happened to the Egyptian public, which was prepared for the evacuation of settlements, but not for their bulldozing, but they understood the decision was final. From the office of the Egyptian foreign minister, Ambassador Sasson phoned Prime Minister Begin and told him that he could give Sharon the go-ahead to start razing the Yamit bloc. There were other appendices to the razing of Yamit. Several years later, there were discussions on an Israeli withdrawal from Taba, south of Eilat, where an Israeli hotel and resort had been built (the withdrawal from Taba was decided on in international arbitration, which ruled in favor of the Egyptians). Sasson recalls that in the talks on withdrawal from Taba, Benjamin Netanyahu, then the deputy foreign minister, wanted to raze the hotel and resort and leave the Egyptians only with ruins. Foreign Minister Moshe Arens rejected Netanyahu's proposal outright. When the razing of Yamit was nearly completed, Begin again telephoned Sasson and told him there was one other little problem. There was a synagogue in Yamit, which at Begin's request, Sharon had not yet razed. "Please contact Mubarak, right away, tonight, however you see fit to do it, and tell him that my request is that they also keep this small building standing," Begin said. Sasson asked: "But we're going to take out the mezuzahs and Torahs and other sacred objects and it will be just like any other building, why do you want to preserve it?" "It's a matter of sentiment," Begin answered. The Egyptians also thought the request was strange, but they consented. Sasson relates that he had forgotten about the whole thing. Only around a year later, during one of his many trips via Sinai, did he decide to go to Yamit and see what had become of the building that had been a synagogue. He saw the mounds of rubble from what had been Yamit and neighboring places. Among the ruins, stood the abandoned and neglected synagogue building, totally covered with anti-Jewish and anti-Israel graffiti. He told the Egyptian foreign minister about it and the latter promised to clean up the place. Sasson returned to Yamit around a month later and found nothing had changed. He again complained to the Egyptian foreign minister and yet again was promised that the matter would be taken care of. Sometime after, when he went to visit Yamit again, he found that the road leading there had simply been plowed over. Access was blocked. Begin was already ill then and Ambassador Sasson decided not to tell him about what had happened to the building he sought to preserve. One way or another, the razing of the homes in the Yamit bloc was perceived for a long time by the Egyptians as proof of the way the State of Israel viewed the peace treaty. The Egyptian press reported on the scorched earth that Israel leaves behind. Perhaps something can be learned from this episode about the fate of the homes in Netzarim, Kfar Darom and other places and perhaps not. It is possible that Sharon was eager then to raze Yamit and the neighboring towns and it is possible that he persuaded Begin to do so. The responsibility, in any event, according to the testimony of Ambassador Sasson, lies entirely with Menachem Begin. To Go To Top

WHAT'S NEW IN PARIS Posted by IsrAlert, May 30, 2004.

This was wrtten by Carole Raphaelle Davis and appeared today in the Jewish Journal. Janet Levy Ross, an IsrAlert subscriber, brought it to our attention. The spring 2004 fashions have arrived in the chic boutiques of Paris, and along with 50s-style full skirts and prim lace collars, anti-Semitism is back in fashion. In France this season, Jew-hating is all the rage - literally. Attacks against Jews and their property have escalated to an alarming extent. The French Jewish community (at 600,000, the second-largest Jewish population outside of Israel) is living in a state of anxiety. Hostile acts against Jews are posted weekly on the Web site of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (www.crif.org), and on www.consistoire.org/incidentsfr.html, a government hate-crime report center. Here are just a few examples from the last few weeks: A 14-year-old boy wearing a yarmulke came out of the Ourq metro station and was followed by two young men. They called him a "dirty Jew" and robbed him in front of a crowd of witnesses. The men knocked the boy down, beat him on the head and broke his nose. The boy begged for help from passers-by, who simply walked away. In central Paris, a teacher from a Jewish school was beaten up by young men, who ripped the Star of David from the teacher's neck and trampled her. They called her a "dirty Jew" and lit her hair on fire. They also told her, "We're going to burn all you Jews." A group of four young men interrupted a class in the auditorium of the University Medical School of Saint-Antoine in Paris. They yelled, "We're going to kill all the Jews" and, "We're armed and we're going to take you all down." When a Jewish student confronted the men they beat him and robbed him. The professor who was teaching the class said nothing and the men walked out without a care while the class looked on in silence. The dean of the University has been told of the situation but has not yet responded. On the walls of the Rue Des Rosiers (in the Marais, the Jewish quarter), once again there are signs of the Star of David in yellow paint accompanied by the slogan, "And don't forget the showers of Zyclon," referring to the gas used in Nazi death camps. Also in Paris, a 12-year-old girl coming out of a Jewish school was attacked by two men. They beat her, held her down and slashed her face with a box cutter. They carved a swastika into her face and walked away. Her parents have filed a police report. A swastika carved into the face of an innocent Jewish girl proves how anger directed at Jews in France has moved beyond mere hate-speech and racist vandalism. The symbols of hate have jumped from desecrated tombstones and subway walls to the actual skin of Jews. Unlike the last big wave of anti-Semitism in France, the people who are committing these crimes today are predominantly first-generation descendants of immigrants from the former French colonies in North Africa - Muslim Arabs. Radicalized Islam is taking root all over Europe, encouraged by the international Arab press, the successes of Al Qaeda and sympathy for the Palestinian intifada. This malignant hatred is fueled by the Internet, where thousands of French, European and Arabic-language sites give voice to and connect cyber-haters in Internet chat rooms. Virtual Jewish blood is flowing from ever-growing e-mail lists while live screaming for Jewish blood is heard at pro-Palestinian/anti-American demonstrations on the Grands Boulevards of Paris. A 12-year-old Jewish girl walking home from school in Paris is not an Israeli in "occupied territory," but these days she might as well be. She is defenseless and we must step forward to protect her. This new generation of anti-Semite "Arabullies," are also virulently anti-Israel. Sadly, but not surprisingly, if one speaks in support of Israel at French dinner parties, one is shouted down. Even at my own dinner table, when I told a guest of my fears about living in Paris in such a climate of anti-Semitism, he insisted, "There is no anti-Semitism in France, don't be ridiculous." When I told him about everything I had read about the rising tide of anti-Jewish hatred, he told me I was being "influenced by the Jew lobby" and that whatever I was reading was "Jewish propaganda." When I told him that among other papers, I was reading The New York Times, he said, "You know, The New York Times is a Jewish paper and Jews control all the media." He said it with a smile, even knowing that I am a Jew. What made his comments especially chilling is that he is on the Catholic Board of Education of Paris. So this spring in Paris, like every spring, the fashion runways are a jumbled mix of styles, as each designer angles to dominate the nouveau look of the season. This season, I'm afraid the designers of bigotry and hate are already having a good year. In fact, those long, belted black leather Waffen SS coats look an awful lot like Gucci's sexy new fall line. I wonder what will be modeled on the Paris runways next spring - striped pajamas? Starched black shirts? Europeans have always had a soft spot for this fascist garb; I just hope America doesn't follow suit. To Go To Top

ARAB LIES Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, May 28, 2004.

Dear friends, The entire debate about the euphemistic "unilateral disengagement" from Gaza is very simple: It is not "disengagement" but pure and simple the DISPELLING OF JEWS FROM THEIR HOMES. The entire world is "horrified" and in "shock" about Arab-Palestinians who are forced out of their homes in Rafah, yet morally accept the evacuation of entire Jewish villages and communities. Yet again, Jewish people are being evicted, this time not by Romans, Kazaks, Christians, 1491 Spaniards, 1933 Nazis, and 1950 Arab countries, but by Israel herself, the country designated for their refuge. NEVER AGAIN is thus transformed to YET AGAIN! If the Arabs really meant peace, a few Jewish villages would not have concerned them. What they mean is war, and the victory of chasing out Jews. This kind of immoral victory must be denied to them! Your Truth Provider, Yuval Yuval Zaliouk write the Truth Provider essays. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il To Go To Top

TRYING TO TWIN MADISON WISCONSIN AND RAFAH GAZA - WHO IS BEHIND IT Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, May 28, 2004.

This article is from http://masada2000.org/list-L.html#Loewenstein In 1962 Madison, Wisconsin established its first sister city relationship with Oslo, Norway. In 1988, former Madison, Wisconsin, City Council member Judy P. Olson sponsored legislation to establish criteria for Madison's sister city program... "there must be areas of mutual interest with the prospective city in the areas of culture, business, education, agriculture and other goals." Four years later (1992) a new caveat was added, "Concerns about human rights or other government policies may be expressed by citizens or public officials from either city when considering the prospective sister city relationship or at any other time." Now, in 2004, there's an effort underway to formalize a sister city relationship between Madison and Rafah, Gaza Strip. For those unfamiliar with Rafah, it's the town with tunnels under the townspeople's houses, tunnels used to transport weapons from Egypt to equip the Arab terrorists. Was this simply a cruel example of the "Slippery Slope" phenomenon, a bad joke played on the citizens of Madison or was it a well-organized effort to demonize and discredit Israel? One of the initiators of this effort was Jennifer Sarin-Loewenstein, senior lecturer at the Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison School of Business and HER business is bashing Israel. It seems she went to Jenin [home of Islamic Jihad) and Gaza (home of Hamas) and didn't much like the way the Israeli Army was seeking out Arab/Muslim terrorists. It bothered her that so many "innocent civilians" [those who have not yet murdered Jews?] got killed. This sick Jew was so busy commiserating with Israel's Arab enemies that she never found time to visit a single Israeli hospitals, cemetery or morgue to see what some of those sweet folks from Jenin and Rafah were capable of doing to her fellow Jews! She is no new-comer to Israel-bashing. Previous to her present attempt to come in under Madison's radar with all her pro-Arab propaganda, she worked tirelessly in other ways to ruin Israel's reputation. On October, 2002 she signed a petition accusing Israel of "ever-escalating violence against Palestinians" and urged the U.S. Congress to "suspend all foreign aid to Israel." Nowhere on this petition was there any mention of a single act of Arab "Palestinian" terrorism. On another petition sponsored by the Arab website, Al-Wada, Jennifer Lowenstein supported the "Rights of the Palestinians" to return into Israel. [That's like inviting the Nazis back into Poland!] No mention was made that these so-called "Palestinians" were responsible for their own refugee status! She also signed a "Professors of Conscience" petition warning that Israel might be preparing for "ethnic cleansing" under the "fog of war" while American Troops were diverting the world's attention in Iraq. Jennifer is a "regular" on many Arab websites. But get this. Her anti-Israel crap is appreciated elsewhere. Perhaps the most vile of all Neo-Nazi, anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic white nationalist hate sites is StormFront. [http://www.stormfront.org/] They compiled a list of "Jews Against US Aid to Israel." Congratulations, Jennifer Loewenstein. You're on it! What the Hell is in that Wisconsin Cheese! One would have hoped that more sensible Jews around Jennifer Loewenstein could "rein her in" a bit. Sadly, even her husband, Professor David Loewenstein, hates Israel. David is also trying to join Madison and Rafah at the hip. He's a member of "Jews for Equal Justice (listed here http://www.eccmei.net/j/online.html which accuses Israel of "crimes against the Palestinian people, up to full-fledged ethnic cleansing." He's also an anti-war activist and signed a petition making US aid to Israel conditional on Israeli acceptance of an internationally agreed two-state settlement. He also signed an "Against the Bombing" website petition which also bashed Israel. And so there we have it... Jenny and David, a match made in Hell. Let's hope their infant daughter survives such a dysfunctional, hate-filled environment. Ahaaaa! Jennifer Loewenstien's maiden name is Jennifer Sarin. How perfect is that! Sarin, the deadly nerve gas used (along with Zyklon-B) to gas millions of Jews during the Holocaust! Note: We at Masada2000.org have a great idea (we have lots of them)! Instead of making Madison, Wisconsin and a terror cesspool like Rafah, Gaza, "sister cities," why not make Wisconsin and Israel "Sister States?" After all, consider this... Wisconsin became the 30th state of the Union in May of 1848 while Israel became the State of Israel in May of 1948. In conclusion, we can only hope that the holes in Wisconsin are in their cheese, NOT in their heads! To Go To Top

RIGHT OF RETURN A GREAT IDEA! Posted by Beth Goodtree, May 27, 2004.

The Muslim Arab war cry of 'right of return' tugs at the heartstrings of liberals and the media. Unfortunately, no one seems to realize that this 'right of return' demanded by the Muslim Arabs is not a true right of return, nor do they want it to be applied universally. So let's examine this whole idea of 'right of return' in the harsh light of fairness and see who gets to return where. According to the Muslim Arabs, there is no time limit on the 'right of return.' I happen to agree.? Anyone who was forced from their homes (forced -- not voluntarily left) should be allowed to return. Also, according to the Muslim Arabs, one's descendants inherit the right of return. I agree wholeheartedly. Therefore, let's examine the Muslim Arab version of 'right of return' in light of the latest Arab Summit held in Tunis recently. Cagily, perhaps too cagily, the wording in the preamble of the 'Tunis Declaration' seeks to lull the world into thinking that they are a bunch of peace-loving, law-abiding non-fascist, non-aggressive, non-dictatorships and non-tyrannies whose only goal is sweetness and light and not world domination and subjugation to Islam (1). And while the actual points made in the declaration push a decidedly biased agenda contrary to the preamble, the preamble itself is part of this declaration, so let's apply it in the evenhanded manner in which they want the civilized world to believe is their goal. (In other words, let's make them put their oil money where their mouths are.) In the preamble, the following is declared: "Reaffirming our attachment to the founding principles of the Arab League and the objectives of its charter, as well as the noble humanitarian values consecrated by the United Nations' charter and all provisions of international legality." How blithely they toss that off. Maybe they figured that no one would look up the Arab League Charter. However, I did and learned that it is based upon an earlier agreement, from 1944, called 'The Alexandria Protocol.' (2) Now the Alexandria Protocol is a very interesting document that seems to contradict the image that the Arab League tried to project at their May 2004 pow-wow. In this Alexandria Protocol, section 5 is called 'Special Resolution Concerning Palestine and states the following: " ...providing for the cessation of Jewish immigration, the preservation of Arab lands, and the achievement of independence for Palestine." (So how come no Arabs were screaming about occupation and humiliation, and demanding their own State of Palestine prior to the 1960s, when Egypt ruled Gaza and Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria?) Notice that the date of this Alexandria Protocol, on which the Arab League is based, and upon which the 2004 Tunis Declaration cites as their basis (albeit convolutedly), comes before the UN mandate creating Israel. This means that the UN Mandate nullifies the above-quoted section, which oh-so-diplomatically called for the prevention of a State of Israel and the prevention of Jews returning to their aboriginal homeland. One can see that the 2004 Tunis Preamble is meant to confuse because it endorses a Judenrein Middle East by reference to some long forgotten documents (in Western memories but certainly not Arab's), and yet calls for "...humanitarian values consecrated by the United Nations' charter and all provisions of international legality." So let's look at those 'humanitarian values' cited in the 2004 Tunis Preamble, which reference UN mandates and international law. Since they do not specify anything in particular, I am choosing to look at the 'UN Fact Sheet No.9 (Rev.1), The Rights of Indigenous Peoples' (3). One does not even need to read the meat of this; the first sentence of the introduction is enough. It states "An objective...is the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous people." And while the Arabs occupying Israeli land in Gaza, Judea and Samaria are bellowing about 'occupation' and committing genocide-bombings to prove they are indigenous (despite their own statements to the contrary (4)), one of their respected own proved last year that the Jewish people are the aboriginal inhabitants. (And the Tunis Declaration of 2004 states its support of the rights of indigenous people by its endorsement of UN and international law.) To refresh your memories, this highly respected Arab is Dr. Nabil Hilmi, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of al-Zaqaziq. He made a statement in the August 9, 2003 edition of the Egyptian weekly al-Ahram al-Arabi that he takes as fact the Bible's account of the Exodus. Because of this, he proposed suing every Jew on the planet for a bajillion dollars to pay for The Exodus. The suit, he said, "...is based on what is written in the Torah. It can be found in Exodus, [Chapter] 12, verses 35 through 36'"(5) This means that one of the Arab world's leading scholars takes as fact The Hebrew Bible and is willing to present it as incontrovertible evidence in a court of law. This also means that he can be the chief witness for the Jews of today who are the descendents of the indigenous people (as proven in that incontrovertible book of historical fact -- The Bible) in not merely what is now called Israel, but also Jordan, parts of Syria, Lebanon and other places. Therefore, if the Arab League really means what it says, they should immediately evacuate all the lands stolen from the Hebrew peoples, and return and restore our holy sites, to include, in the disputed territories and Israel: the entire Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the 38,000 tombstones on the Mount of Olives removed by the Jordanians for use as paving stones and urinals, The Tomb of Joseph, The Cave of the Patriarchs, and The Tomb of Rachel (6). And while they're at it, let them return Medina to the Jews! (7) (1) Tunis declaration. http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=277498&lang=e&dir=news (2) Alexandria Protocol. http://www.mideastweb.org/alexandria.htm (3) UN Fact Sheet No.9 (Rev.1). The Rights of Indigenous Peoples. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs9.htm (4) "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism." - Zahir Muhsein, PLO executive committee member, in an interview with the Dutch newspaper "Trouw" March 31, 1977 and http://www.paktoday.com/expert.htm (5) Egyptian Jurists to Sue 'The Jews' for Compensation for 'Trillions' of Tons of Gold Allegedly Stolen During Exodus from Egypt. http://www.dangoor.com/issue76/articles/76087.htm (6) Captured Jewish holy sites Desecrated. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_holysites.php, and Arafat Still Preventing Jews From Visiting Their Holy Site, The Tomb Of Joseph http://www.zoa.org/pressrel2001/20011226a.htm (7) Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 3 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1937), 1, pp. 308T Beth Goodtree is an award-winning writer, with a background in advertising. She writes political commentary and the occasional humor and science articles. To Go To Top

PICTURE OF ARMED ARAB PALESTINIANS BOARDING UNRWA AMBULANCE Posted by IsrAlert, May 27, 2004.

Truly there are war crimes being committed in Rafiah every day. Here is a photo of one in progress. Use of ambulances to transport combatants is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions and the reason is clear and logical. It makes all ambulances suspect of being used for hostile purpose, not humanitarian purpose, and therefore obliges the enemy to behave toward ambulances as hostile and threatening, thus magnifying the brutality of war. The responsibility for obstruction of ambulances, firing on ambulances and other hostile acts toward ambulances is squarely on the party that misused them for belligerent purpose, not on the party that fired on them, obstructed their functioning or other belligerent act toward them. It also belies UN neutrality. Counter the ubiquitous disinformation. Spread this around. You can view the picture on the IDF website (http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=31540.EN) The first item below is from the IDF website, and is entitled: "Israel Channel 10: Armed Palestinians Use UN Ambulances in War against IDF," May 25, 2004. The second item is an article by Ellis Shuman. (1) This is the report by the IDF - Tuesday 25/05/2004 / 17:38 Israel channel 10 aired yesterday Inon Maga'l item showing armed Palestinians use UNRWA ambulances to flee undercover. Photographs taken at the Gaza Zeintun neighborhood about two weeks ago, on the same night the first APC was exploded, clearly show armed Palestinians boarding a UN-marked ambulance with a UN flag, and flee the scene. The reporter stressed that this was not a Palestinian Red Cross ambulance, known to have transported armored Palestinians since the outbreak of events, but rather a supposedly neutral ambulance of the UN. (2) This article is by Ellis Shuman and is entitled "Palestinians said continuing to use ambulances to transport terrorists". It appeared today at IsraelInsider. Israeli Police have uncovered a network that smuggled senior Palestinian Authority officials, including members of PA Chairman Yasser Arafat's elite Force 17 presidential guard, into Israel in fake ambulances. United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) Commissioner-General Peter Hansen demanded that Israel apologize for suggesting that a UN ambulance had transported body parts of Israeli soldiers in Gaza. Israeli Channel Ten television broadcast video footage this week showing armed Palestinians using UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Work Agency) ambulances to flee Israeli forces operating in the Gaza Strip. The television report, filmed in Gaza City's Zeitoun neighborhood on May 11, on the same night the first IDF armored personnel carrier was destroyed, killing six Israeli soldiers, clearly showed armed Palestinians boarding a UN-marked ambulance with a UN flag, and fleeing the scene. The Channel Ten reporter stressed that this was not a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance, known to have transported armed Palestinians in the past, but rather a supposedly neutral ambulance of the UN. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said on May 14 that the Palestinians had also used the UNRWA ambulances to transport the body parts of Israeli soldiers killed in the explosion of the APC. Speaking to Israel Radio, Mofaz mentioned "the inhumanity and depravity of Palestinians in violating the honor of Israeli soldiers and the fact that they used UN ambulances and UNRWA to spirit away body parts from the site of the attack." "I hope that the UN secretary-general will say his piece on this issue," Mofaz said. According to media reports, Reuters has a video cassette of pictures taken during the Israeli army operation in Zeitoun on May 11 showing armed Palestinians using UNRWA ambulances to transport terrorists and possibly also remains of fallen Israeli soldiers. It wasn't immediately clear if the Channel Ten report referred to the same video images. Earlier this month, UNRWA issued a statement saying that armed militants had threatened the lives of one of its ambulance crews and forced them to transport an injured gunman and two of his armed comrades to a Gaza City hospital. Even so, Hansen yesterday issued a statement demanding "an apology and retraction from the Israeli government and military for the damaging and baseless allegations they have made against UNRWA's ambulance drivers in the Gaza Strip." Fake ambulances and documents Meanwhile, police arrested a resident of Azariya, east of Jerusalem, on suspicion that he posed as an ambulance driver and illegally brought into Israel dozens of Palestinians disguised as sick patients. Other arrests are expected to follow. The "patients" were hooked up to medical devices inside the ambulances and presented soldiers or police officers with forged documents at Israeli checkpoints. Police said the network may also have smuggled terrorists into Israel using the same method. Police also raided a warehouse in Azariya, where the GMC vans were transformed into ambulances. They said they are investigating the possibility that the vans were stolen from Israeli hospitals. "There is a strong possibility that Yasser Arafat was directly involved in the ambulance smuggling ring," Judea and Samaria Police Spokesman Doron Ben-Hamo said, adding that documents allegedly signed by Arafat and connected to the ring were found during a raid on a Force 17 office in Azariya on Wednesday. Palestinian minister Saeb Erekat told Reuters that the accusations were "another attempt to undermine the Palestinian Red Cross and Red Crescent" and noted that Israel stops and thoroughly checks every ambulance that goes through a checkpoint. "I don't know why such accusations are being leveled at this time, when they are not even allowing patients to reach medical institutions," Erekat said. Previous misuse of UNRWA ambulances According to information provided by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies, Palestinian terrorists have in the past misused the neutral standing of the UNRWA organization and its ambulances. Nidal 'Abd al-Fataah 'Abdallah Nizal, a Hamas activist from Kalkilya who worked as an UNRWA ambulance driver and was arrested in August 2002, admitted he had used one such vehicle to transport munitions to terrorists and had also exploited the freedom of movement he enjoyed to transmit messages to and from Hamas activists in various places. Nahd Rashid Ahmad Atallah, a senior UNRWA employee working in the Gaza Strip who was in charge of distributing aid to refugees and who was arrested in August 2002, admitted that during June and July 2002 he had given rides in his car - an UNRWA vehicle - to armed terrorists belonging to the Popular Resistance Committees. The terrorists were on their way to attack Israeli soldiers at the Karni Checkpoint and to fire rockets at Israeli settlements in the northern Gaza Strip. Atallah also used his UNRWA car to transport a bomb weighing 12 kilograms (about 25 lbs) to his brother-in-law, a Popular Resistance Committees operative. To Go To Top

WHAT ISRAELI SOLDIERS THINK OF SETTLERS Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 27, 2004.

The Checkpoint Watch Women, ostensibly safeguard Arab rights. Actually, they curb Jewish rights. They interfere with security measures at checkpoints in a hostile way that demoralizes their own soldiers. Countering them in various ways are Women in Green (WIG). WIG wrote a flyer delineating the rights of soldiers. It distributed the flyers and refreshments to checkpoint inspectors. ("Refreshments" is a euphemism for light junk food.) As a result, troops at one checkpoint arrested the Watch Women. That group thereafter skirted that checkpoint. The Arabs who pass through the checkpoints commonly scream, "This is my country." Their hatred is apparent, if their national entitlement is not. Constantly hearing this, and having no recourse, since they can punish the enemy only for violations, the troops are crestfallen. When the Women in Green approached, the soldiers welcomed their patriotic support. Seven armed WIG people drove through Kalondia. Thousands of Arabs from their illegal 12-story houses in the hills were on the streets. The government's attitude is to let the thousands of Arabs build illegally, but drag a handful of Jews off hilltops. The Arabs expressed hatred for the little group of Jews. One screamed, "This is how you want peace, you come with guns." A WIG husband replied, "There is a bullet here especially for you." His idea was to show the Arab he is not afraid. (I would have said, probably to less effect, "You know that these guns keep a measure of peace." Upon reaching the checkpoint, they were hugged by the soldiers. About a month ago, an 18-year-old soldier was inhibited by the Checkpoint Watch Women's aggressive hostility. He held back from searching an Arab thoroughly enough. He did not order the Arab to lower his pants. Under the belt, the Arab hid an explosive device, with which he blew up that Israeli recruit (witness and reliable former associate). ISRAEL'S FEAR OF BAD PUBLIC RELATIONS The ruling class of Israel has widely been criticized for its poor understanding of the power and means of propaganda. I have criticized it for refusing to employ strong propaganda against the enemy because it thinks it can appease the Arabs or because some within it favor the Arabs. As politicians, the Prime Ministers do have a certain dread of adverse public commentary. They have been criticized for planning each day's announcements with an eye on the public relations effect for the next day. This, like their dependence upon polls, gives too much power to fleeting public opinion and the opinions of the enemies of Israel, to the neglect of long-term strategy. Israel's concern with world public opinion is not thought out. It has degenerated into an obsession with appeasing it. Since much of the world is bribed by the Arabs or hostile to the Jews, Israel cannot gain the favor of world public opinion. It certainly cannot do it by appeasement, which always fails. By its nature, appeasement emboldens bigots, increases their demands, raises the pressure on the victim, and fails to assuage their hatred. Their hatred is not objective, although they go through the motions of being objective by citing opposition to Israeli policies and actions as they come up. It wouldn't matter which policies and actions came up. when those policies and actions are favorable to the Arabs, such as by giving the Arabs supplies, the bigots do not applaud. If Israel cedes territories, they applaud - for Israel's death march. Israel can win over portions of world public opinion, mostly by acting firmly in its own interest and explaining its case rather than, as it usually does, apologizing for not undermining its position fast enough. Self-respect earns respect. That is why I always recommend that Israel plan what it needs to do for the long term and how to explain the actions' necessity and justification. Act and explain together. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. To Go To Top

WILL O' THE WISPS Posted by A Time to Speak, May 27, 2004.

This is issue #41 of A Time To Speak. Will O' The Wisp -- also called ignis fatuus [Latin for "silly fire"]: -- a mysterious light that moves away as one approaches it, leading one who follows it into danger or destruction At times a person of good intentions can be subject to hazardous delusions that permit them to believe nice and comforting things and evade or deny harsh and discomforting ones. A simple man believes anything. A clever man ponders his course. - Proverbs 14:15 "No man is exempt from saying silly things. The mischief is to say them deliberately. - Michel de Montaigne, 1588 "Any response to the latest Palestinian atrocity that involves 'ending the cycle of violence' and 'getting the piece process back on track' is also worthy of derision." - Mark Steyn, December 2003 A particularly pernicious will-o'-the-wisp lures the gullible into the morass of an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process. Left to itself, this "silly light" would flicker out were it not refueled with suppositions that there is something Israel or anyone else can do to make the Arabs willing to live in peace with it. If only Israel will concede this or yield that . . . give more . . . and when that does not work give more still . . . All that is needed to keep rushing after this will-o'-the-wisp is the resolve to ignore the amply demonstrated truth that to the Arab it is permanently insufferable that Israel should exist in even the tiniest space or most degraded condition. The Peace Process Delusion inspires demands that "both sides exercise utmost restraint". Obviously, terrorists and their sponsors will not thereby be induced to restraint, so these are really demands that Israel should not respond when its citizens are murdered or threatened. The correct response is to admonish the murderers that the slaughter will not advance their "rightful aspirations" or their "just cause" -- as though that were the prime defect of the slaughters. But the "aspiration" and the "cause" are simply to kill Jews along the way to killing Israel. Official spokesmen for the Arabs and Iranians not only admit but proclaim it, stridently and ferociously. Those dancing after the will-o'-the-wisp ignore that inconvenient detail or frivolously dismiss it as mere rhetoric, while they go on rewinding tapes of roadmaps and touching up visions of Two-State-Solutions. Some are genuinely if unthinkingly beguiled. Others know well enough that this "silly light" can only lead Israel to the No-State-Dissolution. * * * * * * * Another will-o'-the-wisp is a naive sanguinity that hatred of Israel and anti-Israel programs might be ameliorated "if only they understood . . . ", if only Israel presents its case more effectively it will be less vilified. It is indeed true, especially in recent years, that individuals representing Israel before the world are conspicuously unqualified for the role and give a false impression of the character and quality of the country and its people. It is also true that public statements set the wrong tone; defensive when they should be self-confident, apologetic when it should be self-confident, flustered when it should be poised. If there are individuals who believe Israel is evil because they believe the reporting of irresponsible or even corrupt news media, then accurate information might enlighten some of these. But accurate information is abhorrent to the bulk of the news media. For example, in the current actions against terrorism and terrorist-smugglers in Gaza, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) invited journalists to "embed" and thereby witness what was happening. They declined, preferring to invent reports untainted by accuracy, or indolently file PLO propaganda sheets in place of news reports. * * * * * * * Israel does indeed owe it to itself, to its friends, and to the historical record to present itself properly. Yet it is a vain expectation that upgrading information services and public relations can win over policymakers, academics, international organizations and others that have a vested interest in an anti-Israel agenda. That agenda is not formed by anything that Israel does or refrains from doing, or anything it says or how eloquently it is said. Rather, it is formed from political-economic-psychological components that are neither based on nor influenced by facts or fairness. Two plangent examples are the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN). I] The European Union began as an economic affiliation of six states and now subsumes twenty-seven states, with unelected commissioners dictating minutiae of national, domestic and even private life. Reasons enough come to mind why Europe collectively -- with some individual exceptions -- has a self-serving aversion to Israel -- the land of the Jews who survived and escaped the European regime and now outstrip Europe in most constructive accomplishments. . The foreign policy of the EU is collective and conformity is obligatory for all members. (A prime minister of the Czech Republic made some remarks mildly sympathetic to Israel, at a time when his country's membership in the EU was pending but not yet in effect. He was officially taken to task for the indiscretion and warned that such deviancy would not be tolerated.) On the Middle East, the mandatory policy is based exclusively on distaste for Israel. It is required in the formal inte