HOME Featured Stories May 2009 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

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

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, May 31, 2009.

Dawn greets an orchard on the Golan Heights


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

Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT:

One of the first assignments I give students in my introductory photography course is to bring two pictures to class for discussion — one which they like and one which they dislike. In presenting their choices to the class, students begin to develop an internal language for identifying elements in their own work that succeed or fail. I came across this week's photo in my library while researching images for a book project and stumbled upon an interesting insight into how I evaluate my work.

When I first shot this photo of an orchard on the Golan Heights, I rejected it. I don't recall exactly why, but I may have been striving to create something different or I may have been emotionally disconnected from it when editing the shoot. Upon rediscovering it in my library, while perusing hundreds of files late at night in my office, the image evoked a softness, orderliness and a genuinely peaceful early-spring-morning kind of quiet that fit my mood at the moment perfectly.

One of the best times to photograph trees is late winter or early spring, when bright green new leaves or colorful buds give the tree a unique coloration which fades as the new growth matures. I stood on an embankment looking down into the valley where these trees had been planted, and using a telephoto lens, composed an image that removed all other growth save for a small errant patch toward the top of the frame.

I try to explain to my simcha clients that the real value of their investment in professional photography will only become apparent in 5 or 10 years. Sometimes pictures deserve a second look after a period of time, so that when you return to them, you are in a place to see their true value.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, May 31, 2009.

This below was written by Netty Wisbaum of Phoenix, Arizona. Contact her by email at netty@tasteofaz.com


Michelle Obama's trip...Interesting Information!...It explains a lot!

I was at Blockbusters on Saturday renting videos, and I was going along the wall and there was a video called "Obama". I told the men next to me that I wouldn't waste my time. We started talking about Obama.

These guys were Arabs, and I asked them why they thought Michele Obama headed home following her visit in France instead of traveling on to Saudi Arabia and Turkey with her husband.

They said she couldn't go to Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Iraq .

I said "Laura Bush went to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Dubai."

They answered, "Obama is a Muslim, and by Muslim law, he would not be allowed to bring his wife into the countries that accept Sharia Law."

Just thought it was interesting that the Arabs at Blockbuster's accept the idea that we're being led by a Muslim who follows the Islamic creed... They also said that's the reason he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. It was a signal to the Muslim world.

Just thought you would like to know. Odd, I thought HE SAID he was a Christian. Now he wouldn't lie to us would he?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, May 31, 2009.

Melanie Phillips, a straight talking news commentator, laid it on the line about American Jews. She called them "spineless", a descriptive term with which I sadly agree. Find following her article which was posted on Arutz Sheva May 11th, entitled: "Netanyahu Prepares For Obama: Israel To Be Left Alone In World?" This features astute, pungent comments by Melanie Phillips and Caroline Glick both straight talkers.

However, before you get to their observations, I would like to remind our readers about the WW2 war years and the same 'spineless' American Jews who refused to aggressively protest the Hitler Genocide, well known to the Roosevelt Administration. The American Jews feared that anti-Semitism would ramp up in America if they protested the Roosevelt policy of doing absolutely nothing, even to the point of refusing to issue a diplomatic warning to Hitler to cease his policy of Genocide.

The Jews of that era (except for some) were shameful examples of the "pintele Yid" (Jewish spark) buried too deep within many among the Jewish people. Frightened, hand-wringing leadership of Jewish organizations kept their collective mouths shut tight to insure that the Jewish public were simply kept in the dark about the Holocaust in Europe.

Most of the Jewish leadership of the '30's and '40s acted as if they were co-partners with the likes of the New York Times, owned by the German Jewish Sulzberger dynasty. They had reporters in England, France, Germany and the rest of Europe who were eye witnesses to the round-ups, the slave labor camps, the concentration camps and the death camps. Yet they invariably reported atrocities as "unsubstantiated" reports or "rumors" that some Jews were being killed — and always on the deep, inner pages of the vaunted New York Times.

Not until the end, when General Eisenhower was photographed walking through the death camps, viewing the piles of bodies and walking skeletons of those barely alive, did the New York Times and the rest of the Media express shock (or what passed for shock). Most of the American Jewish leaders were spineless and speechless then and, regrettably, now! They learned nothing from the Nazi Holocaust that they would implement to prevent the next coming (probably) nuclear Holocaust.

The Nations of the world gather, led by President Barack Hussein Obama, to force Israel into national suicide via a two-state solution in order to appease the Muslim and Arab Terrorist nations and their proxies. But, the Jews continue to support Obama. It was reported that as many as 80% of the American Jewish population voted for Obama. Even AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations have failed to show sufficient courage and the proper leadership.

One cannot help but think of the Judenratt of Europe — those Jews who worked for the German Nazis in rounding up Jews to transport them to the death camps. They thought they might save themselves and their families if they betrayed their fellow Jews. Hopefully, they were themselves hunted down, although most of the compliant Judenratt were, in the end, also sent to the gas chambers and the Krupp ovens.

As 60 and 70 years ago, the American Jewish leadership is spineless and they float "disinformation" to the Jewish public about "how friendly Obama and his Arabist advisors are to the Jewish State of Israel". The Jews in the Obama inner circle are themselves shameless and without a Jewish backbone — or are merely latter day Judenratt. It would be better if they acted like Shabtai Zvi and converted to Islam or Christianity than to pretend or act like they are courageous Jews. They may only be good for being pallbearers to the Jewish nation and building museums and memorials to the Jews who were murdered or about to be murdered while they remain silent in their "golden medina".

It appears that we Jews who do care will have to rely upon our courageous settlers and our Christian friends to speak up on our behalf. Those Jews who have the courage to defend Israel — even at the real risk of being singled out by a hostile Administration — know who you are. Kol Ha Kavod. (All honor to you.)

As for the Jews in Israel, there are two kinds. First are those who love the Land and are ready to fight to defend it by building their homes, schools and synagogues on it.

Then, there are those called the "radical Left" who seem to "hate the ground they walk on". They bond with the Leftist leaders who, in turn, would abandon the Land G-d gave to the Jewish people and surrender our Land to pagan Muslim Terrorists and the oil-rich Islamic nations.

The article below is entitled "Netanyahu Prepares for Obama: Israel to Be Left Alone in World?" and was written by Hillel Fendel, It appeared May 10, 2009 in Arutz Sheva


(IsraelNN.com) As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu prepares for his visit to the United States next week, warnings abound that the Obama Administration's policies will leave Israel to face Iran and Hamas alone.

The warnings are summed up in recent articles by the West's two main pro-Israel female commentators: Melanie Phillips and Caroline Glick. Writing in the Spectator (United Kingdom) last week, Philips warns that "Obama is attempting to throw Israel under the Islamist bus." She cites the report that Obama's National Security Adviser told a European foreign minister that Obama will be 'forceful' with Israel, and plans to impose, with the EU and moderate Arab states, "a satisfactory endgame solution" upon Israel.

PA State: Evil and Stupid

"This is all not only evil," Phillips says, "but exceptionally stupid… The Arab states are beside themselves with anxiety about Iran. They want it to be attacked and its nuclear programme stopped. They are desperately fearful that the Obama administration might have decided that it can live with a nuclear Iran… A Palestine state will be Iran, in the sense that it will be run by Hamas as a proxy for the Islamic Republic. The idea that a Palestine state will not compromise Israel's security is ludicrous."

American Jewry: Spineless

After expressing incredulity at the American demands for further Israeli concessions in the light of the utter failure of the Disengagement, Phillips writes that U.S. Jews are reacting "with a total absence of spine… Almost eighty per cent of American Jews voted for Obama despite the clear and present danger he posed to Israel. They did so because their liberal self-image was and is more important to them than the Jewish state whose existence and security cannot be allowed to jeopardise their standing with America's elite."

Netanyahu must therefore take Israel's message to "the ordinary American people," she concludes: "They do value and support Israel. They do understand that if Israel is thrown under that bus, the west is next. And it is they to whom Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu must now appeal, over the heads of the politicians and the media and certainly America's Jews and everyone else. He must tell the American people the terrible truth, that America is now run by a man who is intent on sacrificing Israel for a reckless and amoral political strategy which will put America and the rest of the free world at risk."

Glick: Obama Forcing Israel into Corner

Caroline Glick, writing in The Jerusalem Post, states that ahead of Netanyahu's visit to Washington, "the Obama administration is ratcheting up its anti-Israel rhetoric and working feverishly to force Israel into a corner."

She notes that quartet mediator Tony Blair has announced that within six weeks the US, EU, UN and Russia will unveil a new framework for establishing a Palestinian state, and that it is "being worked on at the highest level in the American administration."

Obama Humiliates Peres

Yet another milestone in the U.S. path towards abandoning Israel is the "humiliating reception" President Shimon Peres received from Obama. Visiting in Washington last week, "Peres was tasked with calming the waters ahead of Netanyahu's visit. It was hoped that he could introduce a more collegial tone to US-Israel relations." However, the Obama government barred all media from covering the event, thus "transform[ing] what was supposed to be a friendly visit with a respected and friendly head of state into a back-door encounter with an unwanted guest, who was shooed in and shooed out of the White House without a sound."

Abrogating 40 Years of Understanding

Another point raised by Glick and Eli Lake of The Washington Times: US Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller told the UN that Israel and others must adhere to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), thus effectively abrogating a 40-year-old US-Israeli understanding that the US would remain silent about Israel's nuclear program because it understood that it is defensive, not offensive in nature. The statement also erases "any distinction between nuclear weapons in the hands of US allies and democratic states and nuclear weapons in the hands of US enemies and terror states," Glick wrote.

"The fact that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, all chance of peace between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and the Arab world will disappear," Glick continues, "is of no interest to Obama and his advisers. They do not care that the day after [Hamas said it was] suspending its attacks against Israel from Gaza, the Iranian-controlled terror regime took credit for several volleys of rockets shot against Israeli civilian targets from Gaza."

"The operational significance of the administration's anti-Israel positions is that Israel will not be well served by adopting a more accommodating posture toward the Palestinians and Iran," Glick concludes.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 31, 2009.

So much to discuss within a rapidly shifting scenario.

I begin with a clarification of my previous stated position on Netanyahu, Obama, and the outposts. There were a handful of readers who saw in my recent words a shift towards appeasement, and G-d forbid, that is not what I intended to convey.

I had the impression that Netanyahu believed that agreeing to take down a few outposts would allow him to acquire greater support from Obama for being tough on Iran. What I call a quid pro quo, which is not the same as appeasement.

Here in Israel we are facing down the Iranian threat directly. I was not recommending, and would never, ever recommend, appeasement of Iran. I am mightily contemptuous of Obama's terribly dangerous tendency to appease. I believe it likely that we will attack Iran and I support that. But I am mindful that acquiring certain bunker busters from the US can make us more effective, and that not having the US object to our flying over Iraq can make our mission enormously easier (and provide it with greater chance of success). And, yes, I reasoned that IF (this is the critical qualifier) taking down a few outposts is the cost of acquiring these things, it would be a trade that is worth making. I still reason so. This is what I heard in Netanyahu's comments.

My position was that we must not get so caught in the ideology of protecting our right to some part of the land that we miss out on an opportunity to better protect all of the land and all of the people, vis-a-vis a more effective attack on Iran. I believe Netanyahu speaks truth when he says we are not living in normal times.


However, what I wrote about was "a few outposts." Not all of them, and certainly nothing in the way of large settlements. I acknowledged as I wrote that going this route presents the danger of a slippery slope. What reassured me was the position of key members of the gov't, who are watching Netanyahu and demanding that he (or Barak) not do wholesale taking down of settlements. I trust Benny Begin, and Moshe Ya'alon, and Yisrael Katz, etc. etc., more than I trust Netanyahu. And I had what I consider fairly solid reason to believe that Netanyahu knew full well what his constraints would be with regard his own government.

I also had reason to believe that a token — taking down a tent here, a few shacks there — would be what we would see, in order to give Obama the semblance of "movement" towards peace, and not a whole lot more. And yes, from a purely ideological position, those few shacks are the same as a settlement of 40 or 50 families. But this has not been my focus because of the existential threats we face. Sometimes, I believe, we have to settle for the best deal we can get, on balance, within a given set of parameters.

Please note, I have been taking my cue in part from the settlers, who are rather sanguine about what's happening because they know with these small outposts they can re-build and re-build until they are victorious. That, in the long run is what matters.

At any rate, I thank those who wrote to me with heartfelt anguish and prompted some serious thought and discussion. I take none of this lightly, ever. Many nights, I lose sleep over these issues.


But the situation is now changing, and there is a great deal more to consider. My earlier words may become moot, my perspective superseded by new situations and new information.

Obama met with Abbas on Thursday. With the holiday of Shavuot upon us, I had no chance until now to write about what followed from that meeting. There are a number of factors to consider:

Obama surprised me in one respect regarding what he reportedly said to the media after the Abbas meeting. He actually mentioned PA incitement, an issue rarely addressed. What he said was that Abbas had to "continue to make progress on reducing incitement."

I believe we have to grab hold of this issue as if we were pit bulls, who bite down and don't let go. So much is said about settlements as "an obstacle to peace." (See below) But this is nonsense, because were there to be some peaceful arrangement, settlements could be (not should be, but could be) negotiated out of existence. That is, their presence does not block peaceful negotiations from advancing.

But incitement is another matter all together. The hatred for us that has been inculcated by the PA in the Palestinian population cannot be negotiated out of existence. We cannot have peace with these Arabs at our periphery, or in our midst, unless and until they accept our presence and our right to be where we are. Unless and until they no longer believe that Allah wants them to martyr themselves in a jihad to destroy us. Unless and until they understand that Jews are entitled to dignity.

Palestinian Arabs need to be told consistently by their leadership that genuine peace with us is a good thing. That there is an ancient Jewish history in Jerusalem. That our presence in the land is acceptable and not an affront. And no where is this more urgently needed than in the schools, where the textbooks that are used are invidious and undermine any genuine possibility for peace.

The work to change the textbooks must begin immediately.

This, above all, must be a demand we hold fast to, with the premise, always, that no peace is possible otherwise. That the PA hasn't demonstrated peaceful intent, otherwise. That it's a farce to make demands of Israel, otherwise.

We are being put on the defensive, and this is a necessary offensive stance. And it's absolutely valid.


The PA will not agree to make these changes. The ideology of radical Islam is too mainstream (especially with the growing influence of Hamas). No PA leader could change the line this radically and expect to remain a leader, never mind to live.

To demand this is to unmask the insincerity of Palestinian Arab statements.


But I would demand this not of Abbas, but of Obama, first:

"Mr. President, if you are sincere about promoting ME peace, this is essential. If you cut the PA slack on this, you are destroying chances for peace and putting the lie to your intentions."

"Mr. President, work on changing the horrendously inciteful PA textbooks must begin immediately. This is an absolute prerequisite for peace. You must make this demand a priority."

"Mr. President, PA textbooks teach that martyrdom for Jihad is blessed by Allah. They teach that Jews have no rights in Jerusalem or the land of Israel. How can you ask Israel to make peace with the Palestinian people when this is what they are taught?"

And the time to start is now.
Fax: 202-456-2461 Comment line: 202-456-1111
e-mail form via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/


It seems that Obama intends to cut us no slack on the issue of settlements. He is demanding (and Hillary has reiterated this) a total settlement freeze, even with regard to natural growth.

This means if a young man returns to his community after serving in the army and wants to marry and build a home near his family, he cannot. Of if young couples in a neighborhood have a number of small children, a new nursery school (gan) cannot be built. This is the case even if the new home or nursery school would be built entirely within the existing boundaries of the community and not extended a single meter into "contested area." In fact, a new room could not even be added to an existing home, if a family became larger.

Commentators are observing that this represents an essential change from previous American policy.


But Obama cannot ultimately demand anything. For we are a sovereign nation. The response I'm picking up from various gov't officials is mixed.

From Daniel Herschkowitz, Science Minister and head of Habayit Hayehudi: The American demand to prevent natural growth is unreasonable, and brings to mind Pharaoh who said: 'Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river.'

"If there is a family that expands from one child to four or five, what should we tell them — to ship the children off to Petah Tikva? This is an unacceptable demand, even [even?] if it comes from the Americans, and Israel should reject it decisively."

From Eli Yishai, Interior Minister and head of Shas: "The American demand to freeze construction means expulsion for young people living in large locales. I hope the US administration understands that. If not, I don't want to be an apocalyptic prophet saying we're facing struggle and confrontation. The concessions they're demanding of us are a security impediment we cannot withstand."


But then we have Information Minister Yuli Edelstein (Likud):

"The recent days prove what luck we have that it is Netanyahu's government conducting talks on West Bank natural growth and construction in Jerusalem. Just imagine someone else, he would have led us to an entanglement lasting generations.

"We aren't headed for a confrontation with the White House but rather for understandings..."

And Welfare Minister Isaac Herzog (Labor):

"The current American administration sees things differently than the last two presidents did. Construction is being undertaken around Jerusalem according to understandings with previous administrations. Israel wants very much to reach understandings, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak's upcoming trip to Washington proves it."

At which point an unease moves in....


So it's time to sound the alarm with Netanyahu, who to this day has not agreed to freeze settlements. Let him know that you're behind him as he stands strong, that you are outraged by what Obama is demanding. Remind him that Israel is a sovereign state and does not have to give in to demands from abroad. Implore him to instruct Barak not to cave on settlements when he is in Washington.

Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)


There is one other point of interest I noted with regard to Obama's comments. This provides a glimmer of hope.

Obama said: "...obviously Prime Minister Netanyahu has to work through these issues in his own government."

This seems to indicate that Obama knows that Netanyahu can take issues regarding outposts and settlements just so far before he will be blocked. Thus it's important to make sure this is the case. And so, I would encourage, lastly, communication with key ministers of the gov't, imploring them to stand strong and to block any Barak/Netanyahu initiative that takes down major outposts or freezes settlements. Express your outrage with Obama and say you're counting on them to carry the day.

Minister Moshe Ya'alon: myaalon@knesset.gov.il (no fax given) office phone: 02-640-8891
Minister Yisrael Katz: yiskatz@knesset.gov.il fax: 02-6496-525 office phone: 02-640-8174
Minister Benny Begin: bbegin@knesset.gov.il (no fax given) office phone: 02-640-8022
Yuli Edelstein: yedelstein@knesset.gov.il fax: 02-6758919 office phone: 02-6408-392

For additional ministers:


Then we have an article, "Israel and the Axis of Evil," written by Caroline Glick right before Shavuot, in which she says: "No destruction of Jewish communities will convince Obama to act against Iran." She says a great deal more, and I would like to return to her in a day or two. But here I wish to say simply that if the evidence points to her being correct, if there is going to be no quid pro quo, as Netanyahu had indicated — either naively or hopefully or disingenuously — then there is no reason to countenance taking down of outposts.


In point of fact, another outpost was dismantled last night. This was at Shvut Ami, near Kedumim in Samaria. What was dismantled? One hut; six young people were sent away, without violence. There was talk immediately after of putting up the hut again, but, according to Arutz Sheva, for now the youths have decided to take up residence in a cave on the property, as a cave is difficult to dismantle.

And so, yes, ideologically this is the same as a more significant outpost. But, really, one hut? One has the feeling that Barak is going for what creates the least fuss.


I note as well that the office of the defense minister has declared that it will not, at least not now, take down nine homes in Ofra — a significant settlement northeast of Jerusalem in Samaria — that have been declared "illegal." What we're seeing here is evidence that the defense minister indeed has latitude as to what should be dismantled and that politics play a role in the decision process. In fact, the situation in Ofra serves as a model of exactly how politicized this whole issue of "illegal" is.

This, too, I would like to return to in due course.


I welcome a statement reported by the Washington Post that an Abbas associate made following Abbas's visit with Obama:

"It will take a couple of years" for Obama to force Netanyahu from office.

It is to be welcomed because of the stupidity of the remark, and because it serves to stiffen the spines of members of our government.

The question is whether this was a unilaterally stupid remark, or one based on something said by Obama off the record. My purely intuitive hunch is that it's the latter. And that's certainly the take as well of Likud Faction Chair MK Ze'ev Elkin, who commented, "With all due respect to the United States...we are an independent democratic country..."


Dear friends, bear with me, as the number of issues to address seems to overwhelm my time and ability to address them all. My UNRWA report awaits my serious and reasonably undivided attention. I will post as I can.


"The Good News Corner"

— An Israeli company called Opgal has developed the Fever Detection and Alarm System, which can spot persons with fevers in a crowd in transportation hubs such as airports and train stations. This may have potential in combating pandemics. Drawing on non-invasive heat sensor technology and cameras, the system requires no installation of equipment and is relatively inexpensive to utilize. Persons pegged as feverish would be stopped for culture swabs or further questioning.

— Special Israeli security companies are greatly in demand for providing protection against pirates on the open seas who attack cruise ships and commercial liners. Israeli anti-pirate teams are deemed the best trained and are proving effective. They function on board in hidden capacities (e.g., as life guards) so that pirates collecting intelligence won't be aware of them. The Israeli teams also use hi-tech optic systems to identify pirate ships a distance away.

— A kibbutz called Kishorit, in northern Israel, has become a model of how to provide full living experience for adults who are mentally challenged — whether because of autism, schizophrenia, or other problems. The roughly 150 members, who are resident for life (a facility for seniors is being developed), have established the largest organic goat farm in Israel, run a TV station and have developed a line of toys. Their efforts are supported by a strong sense of community and an aesthetic environment that is comforting.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, May 31, 2009.

Last week a major plot to blow up two New York synagogues and shoot down a plane was foiled. The FBI and NYPD caught a ring of four local terrorists who were in the act of planting the explosives to be used in the attack.

Important plot detail: Three of the four terrorists converted to Islam while serving prison terms.

Radical Islamic chaplains are converting inmates at an alarming pace. After moving to Newburgh, these criminals joined the mosque where they were met by an FBI informant posing as a master terrorist.

What the terrorists didn't know was that the FBI was on to their plot for almost a year, and that the explosives sold to them were fake.

What most Americans do not know is that the threat of jihad by radical Muslims is already very real within the U.S. The threat is not only violent. A sophisticated cultural jihad is steadily progressing within America's borders. Funded by Saudi money and fueled by extreme ideology, radical Islamists are attacking western freedoms and the American way of life from within.

The Third Jihad, from the makers of the critically-acclaimed Obsession, documents these threats with expert interviews and never before seen media footage from the Arab World. The Third Jihad is a must-see for all Americans.

To play the movie, click here.

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, May 31, 2009.

In their 2007 book The Israel Lobby, Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued that there exists a loose coalition of groups that attempts to steer American policy in a pro-Israel direction at a high cost to American national interests. Mearsheimer and Walt's definition of pro-Israel was so broad and their sense of how injurious Israel's existence is to America so deep that, in their telling, the "Israel Lobby" is both all-powerful and all-inclusive. Nevertheless, at the center of Mearsheimer and Walt"s "Israel Lobby" are American Jews — the villainous neo-cons and the pro-Israel lobbying organization AIPAC chief among them.

The sad truth, however, is that if an Israeli Lobby exists, American Jews have failed to enlist. American Jews are demonstrably innocent of putting Israel's interests first, or even high, on their list of concerns — at least if Israel's interests have anything to do with how they are defined by the overwhelming consensus of Jews living in Israel.

A vast majority of Israeli Jews would be prepared to cede a good deal of the West Bank in return for peace. But the experience of the last 15 years has convinced them that peace cannot be obtained without a dramatic reformation of Palestinian society. From the standpoint of the Israeli consensus, the Obama administration's mantra about the necessity of Israel declaring its support for the "two-state solution" is misguided, for it sends the wrong messages to both Israelis and Palestinians.

By focusing on what Israel must do, that mantra ignores what it has already done, and the lessons learned from its past actions. Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Gaza, resulted in their becoming launching pads for suicide bombers and rockets aimed at Israeli civilians. Those withdrawals did not even improve Israel's international standing.

The focus on Israel's next step ignores those never taken by the Palestinians — i.e., moving one iota from any of their positions as of the outset of Oslo. And it conveys the message that nothing is expected of the Palestinians in the future, unlike the Road Map, which made the Palestinians oft-promised end to incitement and terrorism preconditions for further negotiations.

Palestinian statehood, not peace, has become the watchword of American policy. And to that end, the Obama administration has indicated a willingness to impose a solution. National Security Advisor James Jones recently conveyed to a senior European official that "an endgame solution" would be formulated by the U.S., EU, and moderate Arab states, with Israel and the Palestinians relegated to the role of bystanders. On a happy note, he allowed that Israel would "not be thrown under the bus." That same week the chief U.S. arms negotiator called for Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — a clear break with a 40-year understanding between the U.S. and Israel on the issue, and an equally clear indication of how nasty the pressure on Israel might get.

The theory of an imposed solution is that the final contours of a settlement are already well known so it might as well be now. Even if the former proposition were true, the intention of the parties and their ability to perform would still be relevant. The Palestinians cannot run a state — certainly not one that Hamas would not quickly take over — nor do they seek to. Palestinian human rights activist Bassam Eid declared after the Hamas-Fatah civil war in Gaza, "We do not deserve a state." Fatah prefers the present kleptocracy to a state. Statelessness allows Palestinians to attack Israel without being held responsible, as would a state, and to remain the world's favorite mendicants.

Meanwhile the contrast between the Obama administration's urgency with respect to the Palestinian-Israel tract and its lackadaisical approach to Iran's nuclear ambitions could not be starker. The linkage of Iran to progress on the former is backwards. No more than a year likely remains to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. Peace will not come in that period to a region in which there is still no Palestinian leader who can even recognize Israel's right to be a Jewish state.

The Sunni states fear a nuclear Iran much more than Israel, and they are saying so. They will support an alliance against Iran because it is their interests to do so, as long as they believe America will act decisively and not leave them to Iran's tender mercies.

What has been the response of American Jewry and the vaunted Israel Lobby to the mounting threats to Israel abetted by Washington? Silence. President Obama"s popularity among American Jews remains sky high and rising. Delegates at the recent AIPAC convention dutifully lobbied Congress for the two-state solution. Whom, one wonders, was this feared group lobbying against?

The overwhelming American Jewish support for President Obama demonstrates how far the perspectives of Israeli and American Jews have diverged. For Israeli Jews survival remains the primary desideratum. For American Jews the simulacrum of peace, in the form of a treaty, any treaty, is primary.

For many American Jews, an Israel without peace is misbegotten, not worth the scorn it engenders in The New York Times and on Ivy League

campuses. Daniel Gordis records, in his important new book How Israel Can Win a War That May Never End, being asked by an American Jewish friend: "Why has Israel given up hope?" And with no genuine chance for peace, why forge on?"

It is left to Gordis's teenage daughter Talia to set their visitor straight: The purpose of Israel is not to achieve peace with the Arabs, however devoutly such peace might be wished for. Israelis have not given up hope, just hope for peace in the near future.

American Jews remained largely quiescent during the Holocaust, in part because of their adulation of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who could do no wrong in their eyes. Stephen Wise, the most influential voice in American Jewry, could not overcome his worship of FDR to challenge the latter's position that nothing could be done to save Jews other than win the War. (David Wyman's The Abandonment of the Jews details how much could have been done.)

To avoid embarrassing or pressuring the President, Wise sat on a telegram from Gerhard Riegner of the World Jewish Congress in August 1942, detailing plans to exterminate three to four million Jews in German-controlled Europe, until pressured by the Orthodox and Revisionist Zionists to do something.

American Jews are besotted again and the Israel Lobby of Walt and Mearsheimer's febrile imaginations never existed. Never has that been so obvious as today.

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehuda and Rebecca Poch, May 31, 2009.

We are a new blog. We are at
http://www.theviewfromtheheights.blogspot.com/. Contact us by email at butrfly@actcom.co.il

Below is an essay entitled "Who We Are Dealing With."


It seems to me that in Israel, the media is suffering from the same disease as in the United States. They are simply afraid to say anything negative about US President Barack Obama or his policies. The difference is in the degree. Where in the United States, the media makes no attempt to hide its love affair with Obama — even admitting it openly in several instances — in Israel, the situation is somewhat more reserved. Here, we know that Obama is up to no good, but the media remains to afraid to say it openly.

Yet if any indication was needed to prove just how unfriendly Obama is toward Israel, take the developing nuclear arms race among the "Axis of Evil" states. Iran, which for years has been quite open about its nuclear plans and its earnest wish to "wipe Israel off the map", tested a ballistic missile last week capable of hitting targets within 2000 km — which includes most of Europe and the American forces stationed there, as well as any target within Israel. This missile, operated with solid fuel rather than the more primitive liquid variety, has greater accuracy at longer ranges than previous missiles deployed by Iran. And the missile was test fired during Obama's meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, timing that was surely no accident.

Yet US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could not quite put her finger on why Iran is such a concern. In comments she made late last week, she stated that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would cause a nuclear arms race in the region, which would run counter to the interests of most Arab states and constitute a danger to America. Not one word was mentioned about Israel, or Ahmadinejad's oft repeated threat to destroy this country.

Clinton's complete naivete, or willful ignorance, is a very big reason why she should not be allowed to continue in her post. If the major threat to the US comes from a potential arms race in the Middle East, and not from the possibility that Iran might try to fulfill its threat to destroy another nation — and one that is strongly allied with the United States no less — then Clinton has quite a lot to learn about the world and is simply unqualified for her position.

Contrast this with President Obama's very forceful response to the North Korean nuclear test this week, which was followed almost immediately by the testing of three long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Obama correctly condemned the tests and stated that they run counter to United Nations resolutions and that they pose a clear threat to both South Korea and Japan, "which the world must act against".

Why is it that North Korea remains part of the "Axis of Evil" and warrants such stiff condemnation and calls for concerted international action against its nuclear arms program? Has North Korea voice any kind of clear threat against anyone? Has Kim Jong-Il threatened to sink Japan or wipe South Korea off the map? Has he attended a UN sponsored conference to do nothing other than call for the annihilation of another State? North Korea simply tested some of their own emerging technology, and this was enough for the US to issue the strongest condemnation of Barack Obama's term in office.

Yet Iran, which openly and belligerently threatens another country; whose president uses every stage and opportunity to proclaim his desire to annihilate a member State of the United Nations, and who thumbs his nose at American interests in a large part of the world, merits no such condemnation. Not only that, Obama is interested in opening a dialogue with Iran in an effort to make nice and to appease Iran's leaders into changing their mind.

Regarding North Korea, America's leaders are very clear on where the threat emanates from and what it actually is — even though North Korea doesn't state any threat openly. But regarding Iran, Clinton simply can't bring herself to say that Iran's threat is an open military threat against Israel. To her, the real threat is not important. It is only the perceived threat of a regional arms race that concerns her.

It is clear from this comparison that what is driving US policy toward Israel is nothing short of anti-Semitism. Let's face it — where Israel is not the issue, the American response is in line with its historical posture. The US has always been strongly opposed to a nuclear North Korea. And rightly so.

But when Israel is the issue, no one's home. Iran could fire a missile at Tel Aviv and wipe out a million Jews, and the current US administration would continue with its negotiations in the hope of preventing an arms race.

It is high time for Israel — the media, the government, and the nation as a whole — to wake up and understand the Obama Administration's policies for what they are — a kick in the stomach to Israel's existence. Prime Minister Netanyahu may already be aware of this and acting accordingly if his performance in Washington last week is to be continued.

But the logical conclusion is that Israel must find new allies to stand alongside us as America leads the rest of the world in turning against us. One such possible ally is India, which faces a grave threat from the possibility that Pakistan's government will fall apart and leave its nuclear arsenal in the hands of al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Finding such new alliances is not so difficult. But it will take courage to do so.

To Go To Top

Posted by Carl in Jerusalem, May 31, 2009.

A poll taken in the month of April, and published by the 'Palestinian' Center for Development Studies on Wednesday, shows that 39.6% of Gazans and 28.8% of Judea and Samaria 'Palestinians' would like to emigrate. Here are some of the poll highlights:

1. How do you describe the current economic situation of your family?
Very good 5.2 Good 25.3 Intermediate 41.5 Bad 19.2 Very Bad 8.7

2. In the current period, do you feel that you and your family are safe?
Yes 38.3 Somewhat safe 30.3 No 31.0
I don't have an opinion / I don't know 0.5

3. Are you generally optimistic or pessimistic about the future?
I am optimistic 42.0 Somewhat optimistic 26.0
I am pessimistic 31.3 No opinion .7

4. Is the family provider currently employed?
Yes, regularly 48.7 Yes, occasionally 28.4
There is no provider for my family 2.7 The family provider is unemployed 20.2

5. If you had the opportunity to migrate and live abroad, would you immigrate?
Total yes 32.6 No 67.4
West Bank yes 28.8 No 71.2
Gaza Strip yes 39.4 No 60.6

6. Have you been personally exposed to any of the following practices by the occupation army?
Beating yes 20.9 No 79.1
Arrest yes 13.7 No 86.3
Injury yes 8.5 No 91.5
Verbal abuse, and insulting yes 30.7 No 96.3
Sexual Harassment yes 4.5 No 95.5


To get out of the current Palestinian crisis, which of the following propositions do you approve?
1) Forming a unity government of all factions 58.0
2)Forming a government of independent specialists 19.4
3)Forming a mixed government of specialists and factions members. 22.6 9

Will you approve a solution taking in consideration the UN resolutions and including a Palestinian independent state in West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital and a just solution for the refugee problem?
Yes 82.1 No 13.7 I am not sure 4.2


Within the different practiced strategies, which of the following is more likely to achieve national liberation and establishment of the independent state?
Armed resistance 18.0
Negotiations 16.6
Using both resistance and negotiations 42.5
Non-violent resistance and negotiations 17.7
I don't know 5.3

Note especially that most 'Palestinians' do not claim to have been abused by the 'occupation army' (and I would bet that many of the claims that were made have been exaggerated), and that despite the fact that most 'Palestinians' would accept solutions that Israel has offered, a plurality of 'Palestinians' want to use both 'resistance and negotiations' and substantial numbers want to leave. I view that as despair that the 'Palestinian' leadership will ever accept a solution to the 'Palestinian' problem offered by Israel.

By the way, the picture at the top is a collapsed cesspool in Gaza a couple of years ago.

Carl in Jerusalem blogs at Israel Matzav. This essay is archived at http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/05/

To Go To Top

Posted by CPocerl, May 31, 2009.

A reader of the article, Roger, Los Angeles, USA, wrote: "Hosni is a perfect example of his brethren in Egypt. This is their mindset and this is who they are. This is why UNESCO is a joke."

That says it.

This below was written by Charles Bremner in Paris. It appeared in Times Online


Farouk Hosni says he regrets his outburst in the Egyptian parliament

An Egyptian Cabinet minister who offered to burn Hebrew books last year enters the final straight as favourite for leadership of Unesco today in the face of fierce opposition from Jewish groups and intellectuals in Europe.

Farouk Hosni, 71, an artist who has served as Culture Minister for 21 years, apologised this week for his book-burning call and is still deemed front-runner among seven contenders for the post of director-general of the Paris-based UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

Applications close tonight after a ten-day battle between Mr Hosni and his accusers, conducted largely in the pages of Le Monde, the highbrow French newspaper.

Israel decided this week to back Mr Hosni and it is held to be the Arab world's turn for the plum international post, but if the furore in France and Germany spreads he may lose when Unesco members vote in September.

Mr Hosni, who is supported by the Arab League and African nations, had until recently been deemed an easy choice to succeed Koichiro Matsuura, of Japan, as the ninth chief since Sir Julian Huxley was Unesco's first director-general in the late 1940s.

The latest in a long history of Unesco storms erupted last week with a blistering attack in Le Monde by three Jewish celebrities under the title: "The shame of a disaster foretold".

Bernard-Henri Lévy, the philosopher-journalist, Claude Lanzmann, the film-maker, and Elie Wiesel, the Nobel peace laureate, urged the international community to block the appointment of a man whom they described as a racist and inciter of hate. They cited his call in the Egyptian parliament last May to burn all Hebrew language books in the Alexandria library. "If there are any there, I will myself burn them in front of you," he said.

They also summarised Mr Hosni's "nauseating" anti-Israeli positions, including allegations that Jews had infiltrated the world's media and spread lies. "We invite all countries dedicated to liberty and culture to take the initiatives necessary to avert this threat and avoid the disaster that would be his nomination," they said.

Mr Hosni responded on Wednesday with an apology. "I want to solemnly say that I regret the words that I used," he wrote. "Nothing is more distant to me than racism, the negation of others or the desire to hurt Jewish culture or any other culture." He said that his remark on the books was delivered in the heat of the moment and should be understood in the light of the suffering of the Palestinian people. He pleaded for understanding and noted that he was deemed to be a disgraceful liberal by Egyptian and Arab conservatives.

"My failure would be a victory for the most intolerant circles in my own country," he said.

The French criticism was echoed by the German Council of Culture. Olaf Zimmermann, its chief executive, said that someone who "failed to respect the diversity of the world's cultures" should not be allowed to run global cultural and education policy.

The publicity has shone a light on Mr Hosni's record as a leader of Egyptian orthodoxy. He has censored the media and films. He once banned heavy metal music and its fans were arrested. Two years ago he barred from Egypt The Band's Visit, an Israeli comedy about an Egyptian police band marooned in a poor Israeli town.

The controversy may be turning European governments against Mr Hosni but it is too early to predict an outcome, diplomats say. Contact CPoerl by email at Cpocerl@aol.com

This appeared in the Times,

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 31, 2009.

Spain has rebuked Israeli anti-terrorist efforts as inhumane. It plans to prosecute Israeli officials for alleged war crimes in Gaza. Everyone knows the real motive is to persecute Israel for defending itself.

How does Spain deal with its native terrorist movement, the ETA, seeking independence for the Basque provinces. Unlike Palestinian Arabs, the Basques are a distinct nationality, and had independence at various times.

Basque terrorists have killed about 800 people, a fraction of the number of Israelis murdered by Arab terrorists, even smaller in proportion to population, inasmuch as Spain has several times the population of Israel. Here is how Spain deals with its own, Basque terrorists.

Spanish paramilitary forces routinely torture captured terrorists or innocent people caught up in arrests.

Spanish death squads exterminate Basque terrorists or innocent people caught up in raids. The government claims no knowledge of this, but several high government officials were convicted for it. Spanish anti-terrorist forces routinely injure bystanders. Sometimes this result from bombs those forces plant without knowing who will set them off. Some squads invade foreign countries, to do this.

Spain demanded that other countries deport Basque terrorists.

Spain hypocrisy demands that Israel not "occupy" Judea and Samaria. Hypocritically, Spain maintains a couple of enclaves on the coast of Morocco. Morocco claims them. Jews have more legitimate a right to reside in the Jewish Territories in their homeland than Spaniards have in enclaves of Morocco.

Africans try to get into the Spanish enclaves, so Spain built a fence to bar them, but demands that Israel tear down its own fence. Israel's much-criticized security fence was built to keep out murderers, not the case with Spain's enclaves (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/12).


Spain's legislature resolved that the government should end prosecution of alleged human rights abuses of non-Spaniards for crimes committed abroad and against non-Spaniards. The practice makes diplomatic problems and could become a "judicial free-for-all." (Victoria Burnett & Marlisa Simons, NY Times, 5/21, A10.) What does free-for-all mean, here?

The report devoted itself to defending the practice. It did not explain the real problems with it. Those problems are abuse of the privilege by terrorists to make phony charges against innocent opponents for propaganda and to embarrass them, and perhaps to get a biased court to convict enemies. The New York paper did not serve its readers on that issue. Is it by coincidence that it doesn't like the same U.S. and Israeli leaders who are likely to be indicted under the practice?


Jerusalem Mayor Barkat said that his new, master plan seeks to keep people from moving out of the city. I asked my Israeli associate for an explanation.

She informs us that real estate is pricy there, whether rental or purchase. Business people from all ethnic and religious segments can afford it. Newlyweds cannot. They live with their parents or move to suburbs, such as Male Adumim, Efrat, Neve Daniel, etc..

People are drawn from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, center of the hi-tech industry. Jerusalem needs affordable housing and high-tech industry.

You may recall that the master plan projects thousands of new apartments; see
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d20-Jerusalems-new-master-plan


When foreign critics of Israel claim that Israeli settlements in the Territories are illegal, they fail to cite the international law and to consider the law-based arguments that they are legal.

They know that the Arabs want the Territories, but overlook their desire for all of Israel, whose conquest they consider the Territories a major stepping stone. Not a "two-state solution" but a final solution.

The Arabs want the Territories; but wanting is not entitlement. Why should foreigners prefer the Arab desire to the Jewish desire? Prejudice?

The specious assumption is that the Jews who returned to their ancient homeland there are foreigners, and not entitled to the area, whereas the Arabs, who invade or immigrated to the Jewish homeland are aboriginal. Don't expect the governments and journalists who have that assumption to remember or acknowledge that the post-WWI peace accords broke up the Turkish Empire into a mostly Arab Mideast with the traditional Land of Israel to be returned to the Jewish people from whom it was usurped. Or that afterwards, Britain gave most of the Jewish homeland to the Arabs, anyway. Now they want to divide Israel again, making it non-viable. It's the usual foreign policy foul-up.


If Israel makes a nationalistic or self-defense decision before a meeting with U.S. officials, critics claim Israel insults the U.S. officials. Childish carping.


Russia did it again. Criticized for preparing to sell advanced jet fighters to Iran, Russia claims it is freezing the deal. It did the same with advanced anti-aircraft missiles. It did the same with nuclear power plants that promote development of nuclear weapons. But the nuclear technology transfer went on anyway.

I think that Russia backs off only temporarily, until the criticism dies down. That gangster state (run by the KGB and not by rule of law) does anything for money and to embarrass the U.S. Wait till the Muslims start shaking down Russia or subverting it from within!


The American Israeli Action Coalition consists of Americans in Israel, but has an office in New York City, too. It has a quarter-million people to draw upon.

The membership love and understand both countries. They are in a position to advise both on productive policy. Their principles:

1. Cultivating cooperation between the peoples and governments of the United States and Israel.

2. Representing the voice of Jews of the United States to the State of Israel.

3. Furthering the continued development of democracy and democratic ideals in the State of Israel.

4. Cultivating the unity of all members of the Jewish faith in Israel.

5. Securing the recognition of a united and undivided Jerusalem as the current and eternal capital of the State of Israel.

6. Promoting efforts for a true, effective and final peace between the State of Israel and the neighboring states based on safety and security.

7. Furthering the non-discriminatory application of human and civil rights in the State of Israel to all members of her citizens.

8. Advancing the message that the State of Israel is a Jewish state .

9. Encouraging and promoting the complete integrity of all members of Israel's Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

10. Fostering the security and freedom of Jews throughout the world of all members of the Jewish faith.

11. Promoting the interests of the Jewish People in the State of Israel.

The Coalition sponsored the first U.S. presidential-style debate held abroad. Both candidates sent representatives to participate. The Coalition, itself, is non-partisan, being interested in broader issues. Hundreds attended. The debate was more feisty than those between the actual candidates. Such activity helps keep expatriates focused on U.S. politics and U.S. politicians focused on Israel.

Press releases, endorsements or criticism of policies, meetings with U.S. politicians, newspaper advertisements — it has done that, too. See its website: http://www.aiacoalition.org/

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, May 31, 2009.

A California nonprofit dedicated to "teaching about Islam & Muslims" at U.S. high schools and college campuses features a board of advisors that is stacked with some of the most controversial activist professors in the field of Middle Eastern studies today. The imprimatur of these scholars may signal a troubling shift toward the support of proselytizing efforts and the further unraveling of Middle East Studies in America.

The board of Islamic Networks Group (ING) is a veritable Who's Who of Islamist apologists and activists. Leading the list is John Esposito, the founding director of the Saudi-funded Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. He famously stated that the suicide-bombing Hamas organization engages in "honey, cheese-making, and home-based clothing manufacture."

Joining Esposito on the ING board is Sherman Jackson of the University of Michigan, who was a trustee at the North American Islamic Trust and worked with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both un-indicted co-conspirators in the U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation.

There's also Ingrid Mattson, a convert to Islam, who is a professor at the Hartford Seminary and president of the un-indicted co-conspirator ISNA. While much of her work is controversial, she is famous for a CNN chatroom interview in 2001 in which she stated that the radical Saudi Wahhabi ideology is "a reform movement" that "really was analogous to the European Protestant reformation."

Hamza Yusuf Hanson, who is not a scholar but sits on the ING board, publicly declared his own extremism at an ISNA convention. In 1991, he reportedly delivered a speech titled "Jihad is the Only Way" to the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), which is an arm of the radical organization Jamaat-i-Islami in Pakistan.

While Maha El-Genaidi, the founder, president and CEO of ING, does not appear openly to embrace radicalism, she reportedly has worked with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), also an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. El-Genaidi also participated in an event sponsored by the Muslim Students Association with Siraj Wahhaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

ING's reach is wide. Its web site lists more than a dozen affiliated organizations in North America. They reflect a broad network involved in Islamic outreach (da'wa), otherwise known as proselytizing.

The list of ING affiliates includes such Muslim outreach organizations as: The Islamic Speakers Bureau of Nebraska; the Islamic Resource Group in Minnesota; the Islamic Education and Resource Network in Michigan; the Islamic Center of Cincinnati; the Organization of Islamic Speakers Midwest Illinois; the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Atlanta; the Kentucky Islamic Resource Group; the Islamic Speakers Bureau of San Diego; and the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Vancouver.

Because ING charges nothing for its campus speeches, hosts aren't deterred by financial needs. Thus, with a modest 2007 budget of $356,000, the latest figure available via public tax returns, ING made an astonishing 750 classroom visits in one year, a figure that doesn't include visits to churches, senior centers, corporations, and forums for policemen and healthcare workers. According to a recent ING newsletter, the group reached 14,000 students and adults after public schools and universities responded to a large-scale ING direct mail campaign.

ING also disseminates its message through the printed word. Access to the ING online store is now denied for reasons unknown, but a few of the organization's publications are available on the Internet. Among them is Arab and Muslim Stereotyping in American Popular Culture by Jack Sheehan, a former communications professor at Southern Illinois University who was also a visiting professor at Esposito's Center for Muslim Christian Understanding. Another title is Presenting Ramadan and Eid in Elementary School: Grades K-6 Kit for Parents and Teachers, designed to generate excitement about these Muslim holy days through art, music, and "lunar activities."

ING also appears to have created a curriculum about Islam for grades 7 through 12. It also appears that the State of California, at least at one point, used ING curriculum. However, the ING links on the California Department of Education website are now dead.

There is nothing even vaguely radical on the ING website. The organization's behavior appears to be consistent with its message of pluralism. One might only observe that the organization attempts to whitewash the radical strains of the religion (a common theme in the work of Esposito and Mattson).

Without challenging ING's freedom to preach, two important observations should be made.

First, it is now clear that some Middle Eastern Studies professors have ceased being observers of Islam and are now engaging in its propagation. Countless analysts have noted that Middle Eastern Studies professors substitute scholarship with apologia for radicalism. Still others openly agitate against the United States or Israel. However, it is rare to see scholars openly lend their support to proselytizing efforts of this kind.

It is too early to know whether the scholars on the ING board represent an anomaly or a trend. The motivations of Mattson and Sherman — both converts to Islam — are somewhat understandable. Esposito, a non-Muslim, is more of a mystery.

On a more practical level, elementary school, high school, or college administrators mulling a free visit from El-Genaidi's group should be forewarned about the academic engine that powers ING. ING's leading thinkers have a history of cavorting with apologists for radicalism-and the radicals themselves.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism analyst for the U.S. Treasury Department, is deputy executive director for the Jewish Policy Center and author of Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. Contact him at jschanzer@jewishpolicycenter.org

This appeared in the American Thinker and is archived at www.jewishpolicycenter.org/973/islamic-speakers-bureau-backed-by-radical-profs The original has live links to additional material.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yid with Lid, May 31, 2009.

The issue of natural growth of existing settlements is an important one for Israel. Without that growth, parents who have lots of children will not be able to move into a bigger apartment, children who get married and have kids will not be able to live near their parents.

Elliott Abrams, the former deputy national security adviser who was intimately involved in the issue of Israeli settlements, acknowledged that there were understandings regarding natural growth in a Washington Post article in April, in which he said, "For the past five years, Israel's government has largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted: that there would be no new settlements, no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements and no new construction except in already built-up areas. The clear purpose of the guidelines? To allow for settlement growth in ways that minimized the impact on Palestinians." Source

But President Obama, and SOS Clinton have made it absolutely clear that the old US/Israel agreement is is no longer OK with the US. The clear message being given to Jerusalem by some key supporters in the US is that this time, there is not going to be a lot of understanding in the Democratic Congress for any building in the settlements.

So what is going on here? Is Obama breaking the agreement in order to be able to use the settlements to distance himself from Israel and toward the Muslim world? Or did he make an issue of the settlements because like the moderate terrorist Abbas, he thinks it the easiest way to get Bibi out of office? Or maybe the Democratic Party just has a problem with Jewish babies?


What does Hillary Rodham Clinton have against Jewish babies? Last week, the secretary of state issued a demarche to Tel Aviv stating that Washington "wants to see a stop to [West Bank] settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions." The euphemism "natural growth" refers to children. About 9,600 babies were born in West Bank settlements in 2007, and the State Department views these bundles of joy as a threat to its precious peace process.

The demographic issue is central to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Some Israelis fear that they will be overwhelmed by a rapidly growing Palestinian population, so to the settler population, having children is a patriotic act. The new arrivals require larger houses, schools, playgrounds and other facilities, hence the need for the settlement growth that is upsetting Foggy Bottom.

The no-baby declaration came as welcome news to Palestinians, who are rapidly losing their advantage in the breeding battle. Aggressive international family-planning programs contributed to Palestinian fertility rates dropping almost 30 percent between 2003 and 2008, to 3.31 children born per woman. This compares to 2.77 births in Israel, which experienced a 10 percent increase over the same five-year time period. If these trends continue, Israelis will be outpacing Palestinians in a few years.

For this and religious reasons, abortion is a crime in the Palestinian Authority unless the physical health of the mother is endangered. Palestinians generally are what in American parlance would be called "pro-life." A 2008 study by WorldPublicOpinion.org showed that just 38 percent of Palestinians say abortion should be an individual decision, compared to a global average of 52 percent. Most support some form of government restrictions.

The Obama administration has taken a despicable stand in favor of promoting abortion overseas. On his third day in office, President Obama rescinded the 1985 Mexico City Policy, which stipulated that U.S. Agency for International Development family-planning assistance would be given only to foreign nongovernmental organizations that would pledge not to perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. Mr. Obama also seeks to return U.S. financial support to the United Nations Population Fund, which promotes controversial "family planning" efforts in the developing world.

Many Palestinians view such internationally sanctioned family-planning efforts as a conscious plot to reduce their numbers. In a report in the Hamas-run daily newspaper Filastin, Sari Hanafi, the director of the Palestinian Diaspora and Refugee Center, quoted a colleague who said that "the United States seems to have two ways to control population growth in Palestine: one through the Apache gunships and the other through family planning programs."

The State Department would do well to stay out of this issue. The West Bank settlers in particular will not respond well to finger-wagging from the United States over how many children they choose to have. Behind the euphemism "natural growth" are thousands of babies, girls and boys, who are objects of love and adoration of their doting parents. Secretary Clinton's devotion to the peace process is a much less powerful force than the love of Israeli parents for their children.

This comes from the Yid with Lid website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, May 31, 2009.

This comes from Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il Write him at imra@netvision.net.il


"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."
— President Bush

"On behalf of the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, Mr. Ariel Sharon, I wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached between us:

1. Restrictions on settlement growth: within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria. An Israeli team, in conjunction with Ambassador Kurtzer, will review aerial photos of settlements and will jointly define the construction line of each of the settlements."
— Dov Weissglas, Chief of the PM's Bureau

In return for PM Sharon's unilateral retreat from the Gaza Strip, President Bush agreed to the following exchange of letters which provided for settlement construction to continue within building lines with recognition that these "realities" would be reflected in an agreement. The exchange of letters was critical in gaining approval for Sharon's proposed retreat by the various Israeli authorities.

It should be noted that the construction lines were never set. By the same token, a list of unauthorized outposts was never prepared.

The complete text of the letters follow:

Letter from US President George W. Bush to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
14 April 2004
www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Reference+Documents/ Exchange+of+letters+Sharon-Bush+14-Apr-2004.htm

His Excellency
Ariel Sharon
Prime Minister of Israel
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

Thank you for your letter setting out your disengagement plan. The United States remains hopeful and determined to find a way forward toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. I remain committed to my June 24, 2002 vision of two states living side by side in peace and security as the key to peace, and to the roadmap as the route to get there. We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace. We also understand that, in this context, Israel believes it is important to bring new opportunities to the Negev and the Galilee. We are hopeful that steps pursuant to this plan, consistent with my vision, will remind all states and parties of their own obligations under the roadmap.

The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents. I therefore want to reassure you on several points.

First, the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.

Second, there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until they and all states, in the region and beyond, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations. The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.

Third, Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations. The United States will lead efforts, working together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community, to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means. The United States understands that after Israel withdraws from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue.

The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

I know that, as you state in your letter, you are aware that certain responsibilities face the State of Israel. Among these, your government has stated that the barrier being erected by Israel should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent, and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.

As you know, the United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent, so that the Palestinian people can build their own future in accordance with my vision set forth in June 2002 and with the path set forth in the roadmap. The United States will join with others in the international community to foster the development of democratic political institutions and new leadership committed to those institutions, the reconstruction of civic institutions, the growth of a free and prosperous economy, and the building of capable security institutions dedicated to maintaining law and order and dismantling terrorist organizations.

A peace settlement negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians would be a great boon not only to those peoples but to the peoples of the entire region. Accordingly, the United States believes that all states in the region have special responsibilities: to support the building of the institutions of a Palestinian state; to fight terrorism, and cut off all forms of assistance to individuals and groups engaged in terrorism; and to begin now to move toward more normal relations with the State of Israel. These actions would be true contributions to building peace in the region.

Mr. Prime Minister, you have described a bold and historic initiative that can make an important contribution to peace. I commend your efforts and your courageous decision which I support. As a close friend and ally, the United States intends to work closely with you to help make it a success.

George W. Bush


Letter from Dov Weissglas, Chief of the PM's Bureau, to National Security Adviser, Dr. Condoleezza Rice

18 Apr 2004
www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Reference+Documents/Letter+ Weissglas-Rice+18-Apr-2004.htm

Dr. Condoleezza Rice
National Security Adviser
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Rice,

On behalf of the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, Mr. Ariel Sharon, I wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached between us:

1. Restrictions on settlement growth: within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria. An Israeli team, in conjunction with Ambassador Kurtzer, will review aerial photos of settlements and will jointly define the construction line of each of the settlements.

2. Removal of unauthorized outposts: the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense, jointly, will prepare a list of unauthorized outposts with indicative dates of their removal; the Israeli Defense forces and/or the Israeli Police will take continuous action to remove those outposts in the targeted dates. The said list will be presented to Ambassador Kurtzer within 30 days.

3. Mobility restrictions in Judea & Samaria: the Minister of Defense will provide Ambassador Kurtzer with a map indicating roadblocks and other transportational barriers posed across Judea & Samaria. A list of barriers already removed and a timetable for further removals will be included in this list. Needless to say, the matter of the existence of transportational barriers fully depends on the current security situation and might be changed accordingly.

4. Legal attachments of Palestinian revenues: the matter is pending in various courts of law in Israel, awaiting judicial decisions. We will urge the State Attorney?s office to take any possible legal measure to expedite the rendering of those decisions.

5. The Government of Israel extends to the Government of the United States the following assurances:

a. The Israeli government remains committed to the two-state solution — Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security — as the key to peace in the Middle East.

b. The Israeli government remains committed to the Roadmap as the only route to achieving the two-state solution.

c. The Israeli government believes that its disengagement plan and related steps on the West Bank concerning settlement growth, unauthorized outposts, and easing of restrictions on the movement of Palestinians not engaged in terror are consistent with the Roadmap and, in many cases, are steps actually called for in certain phases of the Roadmap.

d. The Israeli government believes that further steps by it, even if consistent with the Roadmap, cannot be taken absent the emergence of a Palestinian partner committed to peace, democratic reform, and the fight against terror.

e. Once such a Palestinian partner emerges, the Israeli government will perform its obligations, as called for in the Roadmap, as part of the performance-based plan set out in the Roadmap for reaching a negotiated final status agreement.

f. The Israeli government remains committed to the negotiation between the parties of a final status resolution of all outstanding issues.

g. The Government of Israel supports the United States' efforts to reform the Palestinian security services to meet their roadmap obligations to fight terror. Israel also supports the American efforts, working with the international community, to promote the reform process, build institutions, and improve the economy of the Palestinian Authority and to enhance the welfare of its people, in the hope that a new Palestinian leadership will prove able to fulfill its obligations under the Roadmap. The Israeli Government will take all reasonable actions requested by these parties to facilitate these efforts.

h. As the Government of Israel has stated, the barrier being erected by Israel should be a security rather than a political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent, and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.


Dov Weissglas
Chief of the Prime Minister's Bureau

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, May 31, 2009.

How did Barack Obama become either an active or passive partner to the Axis of Evil?

Does his passivity to the nuclear development of North Korea and/or Iran shows us a weak leader who cannot be trusted to protect the nation?

That weakness become even more obvious when Obama threatens Israel, the only nation he dares to threaten and the only nation that can or has fought Terror on her own soil. Obama seems to be a Muslim who had that religion imprinted upon him by his Muslim father. Even as Islamic nations and their Terrorist proxies, like Hamas and Hezb'Allah, target America and her Allies of the Free West, President Obama ignores their aggressive attacks all over the world while apologizing for America.

Last month Mahmoud Ahmadinejad test-fired an ICBM — Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile, named the Sajjil-2 with the capacity to reach 1200 miles (2000 kilometers). The Sajjil-2 could carry a 2,200 pound nuclear warhead and reach Southern Europe, Israel and American military bases housing between 200,000 and 250,000 American troops.

It seems as if Obama is a de facto fellow-traveler for Islam while betraying to the "Jihadists" (Holy Warriors for Islam) America's one ally (Israel) who might be able to knock out Iran's growing nuclear threat to the world.

Regrettably, America will pay a terrible price, either from the Muslim "Jihadist" sleeper cells implanted inside America by the Arabist State Department. Or, some of the manifest catastrophes (money crash, weather disasters, biological infections) may be simply the mystical retribution imposed by the G-d of Abraham on a once great nation for turning against the Jewish State and her people.

The American people and a super-majority of the American Congress always supported Israel, while those who rose to political power represented the hatred that the Muslims had for Israel.

This is by Caroline Glick. It appeared May 27, 2009 in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1243346492707&pagename= JPArticle%2FShowFull


North Korea is half a world away from Israel. Yet the nuclear test it conducted on Monday has the Israeli defense establishment up in arms and its Iranian nemesis smiling like the Cheshire Cat. Understanding why this is the case is key to understanding the danger posed by what someone once impolitely referred to as the "Axis of Evil".

Less than two years ago, on September 6, 2007, the IAF destroyed a North Korean-built plutonium production facility at Kibar, Syria. The destroyed installation was a virtual clone of North Korea's Yongbyon plutonium production facility.

This past March the Swiss daily Neue Zuercher Zeitung reported that Iranian defector Ali Reza Asghari who, before his March 2007 defection to the US, served as a general in Iran's Revolutionary Guards and as deputy defense minister, divulged that Iran paid for the North Korean facility. Teheran viewed the installation in Syria as an extension of its own nuclear program. According to Israeli estimates, Teheran spent between $1 billion and $2billion for the project.

It can be assumed that Iranian personnel were present in North Korea during Monday's test. Over the past several years, Iranian nuclear officials have been on hand for all of North Korea's major tests including its first nuclear test and its intercontinental ballistic missile test in 2006.

Moreover, it wouldn't be far-fetched to think that North Korea conducted some level of coordination with Iran regarding the timing of its nuclear bomb and ballistic missile tests this week. It is hard to imagine that it is mere coincidence that North Korea's actions came just a week after Iran tested its solid fuel Sejil-2 missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers [1200 miles].

Aside from their chronological proximity, the main reason it makes sense to assume that Iran and North Korea coordinated their tests is because North Korea has played a central role in Iran's missile program. Although Western observers claim that Iran's Sejil-2 is based on Chinese technology transferred to Iran through Pakistan, the fact is that Iran owes much of its ballistic missile capacity to North Korea.

The Shihab-3 missile, for instance, which forms the backbone of Iran's strategic arm threatening Israel and its Arab neighbors, is simply an Iranian adaptation of North Korea's Nodong missile technology. Since at least the early 1990s, North Korea has been only too happy to proliferate that technology to whomever wants it. Like Iran, Syria owes much of its own massive missile arsenal to North Korean proliferation.

Responding Monday to North Korea's nuclear test, US President Barack Obama said, "North Korea's behavior increases tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia."

While true, North Korea's intimate ties with Iran and Syria show that North Korea's nuclear program, with its warhead, missile and technological components, is not a distant threat, limited in scope to faraway East Asia. It is a multilateral program shared on various levels with Iran and Syria. Consequently, it endangers not just the likes of Japan and South Korea, but all nations whose territory and interests are within range of Iranian and Syrian missiles.

Beyond its impact on Iran's technological and hardware capabilities, North Korea's nuclear program has had a singular influence on Iran's political strategy for advancing its nuclear program diplomatically. North Korea has been a trailblazer in its utilization of a mix of diplomatic aggression and seeming accommodation to alternately intimidate and persuade its enemies to take no action against its nuclear program. Iran has followed Pyongyang's model assiduously. Moreover, Iran has used the international — and particularly the American — response to various North Korean provocations over the years to determine how to position itself at any given moment in order to advance its nuclear program.

For instance, when the US reacted to North Korea's 2006 nuclear and ICBM tests by reinstating the six-party talks in the hopes of appeasing Pyongyang, Iran learned that by exhibiting an interest in engaging the US on its uranium enrichment program it could gain valuable time. Just as North Korea was able to dissipate Washington's resolve to act against it while buying time to advance its program still further through the six-party talks, so Iran, by seemingly agreeing to a framework for discussing its uranium enrichment program, has been able to keep the US and Europe at bay for the past several years.

THE OBAMA administration's impotent response to Pyongyang's ICBM test last month and its similarly stuttering reaction to North Korea's nuclear test on Monday have shown Teheran that it no longer needs to even pretend to have an interest in negotiating aspects of its nuclear program with Washington or its European counterparts. Whereas appearing interested in reaching an accommodation with Washington made sense during the Bush presidency, when hawks and doves were competing for the president's ear, today, with the Obama administration populated solely by doves, Iran, like North Korea, believes it has nothing to gain by pretending to care about accommodating Washington.

This point was brought home clearly by both Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's immediate verbal response to the North Korean nuclear test on Monday and by Iran's provocative launch of warships in the Gulf of Aden the same day. As Ahmadinejad said, as far the Iranian regime is concerned, "Iran's nuclear issue is over."

There is no reason to talk anymore. Just as Obama made clear that he intends to do nothing in response to North Korea's nuclear test, so Iran believes that the president will do nothing to impede its nuclear program.

Of course, it is not simply the administration's policy toward North Korea that is signaling to Iran that it has no reason to be concerned that the US will challenge its nuclear aspirations. The US's general Middle East policy, which conditions US action against Iran's nuclear weapons program on the prior implementation of an impossible-to-achieve Israel-Palestinian peace agreement makes it obvious to Teheran that the US will take no action whatsoever to prevent it from following in North Korea's footsteps and becoming a nuclear power.

During his press briefing with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu last Monday, Obama said the US would reassess its commitment to appeasing Iran at year's end. And early this week it was reported that Obama has instructed the Defense Department to prepare plans for attacking Iran. Moreover, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, has made several recent statements warning of the danger a nuclear-armed Iran will pose to global security — and by extension, to US national security.

On the surface, all of this seems to indicate that the Obama administration may be willing to actually do something to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Unfortunately, though, due to the time-line Obama has set, it is clear that before he will be ready to lift a finger against Iran, the mullocracy will have already become a nuclear power.

Israel assesses that Iran will have a sufficient quantity of enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb by the end of the year. The US believes that it could take until mid-2010. At his press briefing last week Obama said that if the negotiations are deemed a failure, the next step for the US will be to expand international sanctions against Iran. It can be assumed that here, too, Obama will allow this policy to continue for at least six months before he will be willing to reconsider it. By that point, in all likelihood, Iran will already be in possession of a nuclear arsenal.

Beyond Obama's timeline, over the past week, two other developments made it apparent that regardless of what Iran does, the Obama administration will not revise its policy of placing its Middle East emphasis on weakening Israel rather than on stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. First, last Friday, Yediot Aharonot reported that at a recent lecture in Washington, US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, who is responsible for training Palestinian military forces in Jordan, indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria within two years, the Palestinian forces he and his fellow American officers are now training at a cost of more than $300 million could begin killing Israelis.

Assuming the veracity of Yediot's report, even more unsettling than Dayton's certainty that within a short period of time these US-trained forces could commence murdering Israelis, is his seeming equanimity in the face of the known consequences of his actions. The prospect of US-trained Palestinian military forces slaughtering Jews does not cause Dayton to have a second thought about the wisdom of the US's commitment to building and training a Palestinian army.

Dayton's statement laid bare the disturbing fact that even though the administration is fully aware of the costs of its approach to the Palestinian conflict with Israel, it is still unwilling to reconsider it. Defense Secretary Robert Gates just extended Dayton's tour of duty for an additional two years and gave him the added responsibility of serving as Obama's Middle East mediator George Mitchell's deputy.

FOUR DAYS after Dayton's remarks were published, senior American and Israeli officials met in London. The reported purpose of the high-level meeting was to discuss how Israel will abide by the administration's demand that it prohibit all construction inside Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.

What was most notable about the meeting was its timing. By holding the meeting the day after North Korea tested its bomb and after Iran's announcement that it rejects the US's offer to negotiate about its nuclear program, the administration demonstrated that regardless of what Iran does, Washington's commitment to putting the screws on Israel is not subject to change.

All of this of course is music to the mullahs' ears. Between America's impotence against their North Korean allies and its unshakable commitment to keeping Israel on the hot seat, the Iranians know that they have no reason to worry about Uncle Sam.

As for Israel, it is a good thing that the IDF has scheduled the largest civil defense drill in the country's history for next week. Between North Korea's nuclear test, Iran's brazen bellicosity and America's betrayal, it is clear that the government can do nothing to impact Washington's policies toward Iran. No destruction of Jewish communities will convince Obama to act against Iran.

Today Israel stands alone against the mullahs and their bomb. And this, like the US's decision to stand down against the Axis of Evil, is not subject to change.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Milton Franks-Lhermann, May 30, 2009.

This came from Frank Sequeira, who writes, "Finally — someone said everything I have been thinking and feeling, in a more eloquent manner than I ever could.
To whoever is listening...."

It is by Robert A. Hall, who is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts state senate.


I'll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired — very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth around" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it. I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.

I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women's rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Gay people of Iran and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Aren't multiculturalism and diversity beautifully divisive?

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christians and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an (aka Koran) and Shari'a law tells them to do so.

I believe "a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin." I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois.

I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.

I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fund raising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.

Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and scary Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and Madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs.. And I'm tired of harassment from "cool" people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"?

And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare or who serves honorably for five years in our military. Those are the citizens we need.

I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. People die. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years-and still are? Not even close.

So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers — bums are bi-partisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bi-partisanship.

I live in Illinois, where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years.

And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet are bi-partisan as well.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught.

I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to get to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughters.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, May 30, 2009.

1) Who is fleeing Israel?

May 24, 2009

A recent survey of the Israeli population claimed to show that 23 percent of Israelis are considering leaving the country if Iran obtains a nuclear bomb. This concern about mass flight from Israel has been voiced before by scholars. It is also voiced in the academy where professors speak of Israelis "returning" to Europe. But all of this talk is predicated on a leftist Ashkenazi view of who lives in Israel. It is true that the primarily Ashkenazi leftist population of Israel's wealthiest areas where anti-Israel protest is the pastime for Friday afternoon and military service is considered something "for suckers" may be considering "returning" to Europe, their cultural center. But the poor Israelis, the ones with roots in Russia and the Middle East and the right wing Ashkenazim aren't going anywhere. They can't "return" to Europe, they aren't from there.

On May 24th the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University released a study that showed that 23 percent of Israelis would consider leaving Israel if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon. The report didn't give a geographic, religious or ethnic breakdown of who these people were but several statistics reveal more about them. Those over the age of 40 were more fearful than their younger counterparts. Some 39 percent of women said they would consider leaving the country whereas only 22 percent of men said so. In addition those most fearful defined themselves as left wing voters. Thus those seeking to flee were mostly left wing, older and female. What demographic in Israel fits that description? Jewish-Ashkenazi descendants of the second and third aliyah who live in Tel Aviv and the Kibbutzim and who, as a demographic, vote left or extreme-left.

This says much about this group. While living in Israel they support the Palestinians. Their secular culture is primarily directed at learning more about the "Arab other". On Israeli independence day these are the people who go to commemorate the Nakhba. These are the people responsible for the fact that most University graduation ceremonies in Israel feature Arab music, rather than Jewish, western or Israeli music. These are the people who attend the belly-dancing classes. These are the wealthy people who drive cars and don't suffer terrorism because they have poor people to work security for them at their left wing film festivals and they are not forced to ever ride a bus. These are the people with the dual citizenship who can flee the country easily because they have EU citizenship which they obtained based on claims that they were refugees from the Nazis. These are, in short, the exact same people who poured out of Europe in the 1930s fleeing he rise of Nazism, the same people who suddenly fled to Palestine, not as Zionists, but as Jewish refugees, when their beloved Europe, the culture of assimilation they so loved, turned on them.

And now they are going back. Not only are they going back but their culture so dominates the Israeli discourse that authors and writers falsely imagine that the nation of Israel is entirely made up of these people. Consider Benny Morris' assertion in his One State, Two States that "The Arab community is predominantly Asiatic in character, the Jewish community predominantly European." Or consider Ian Lustick who claimed in an article entitled "'Israel's Fight or Flight Response'" published in the National Interest that fears that Iran "might obtain a bomb could lead to substantial Jewish immigration from Israel." Or Professor David Newman of Ben-Gurion University who noted in a recent Jerusalem Post editorial that "Much to their parents' and grandparents' dissatisfaction, young Israelis are returning to Europe in droves and are demonstrating their preferences for European lifestyles and culture just two short generations after the Holocaust. Many of them are taking up their rights to European passports, even through the problematic adoption of Polish and German citizenship." But Newman, Lustick and Morris are wrong. Israel is not primarily a European country, most of its citizens are not lining up to flee and most of them can't "return" to Europe because they aren't from Europe.

The Ashkenazi leftist elite who helped found the state of Israel have given birth to a false Israeli-European narrative of a country full of Holocaust survivors who have dual citizenship and might one day return to Europe. But their narrative represents only that spineless 23 percent of Israel. It represents the wealthy in Tel Aviv, the people in Rishon and Hertziliya and Ceaseria. The people in Rehavia, Talbieh and Katamon. The people in the Kibbutzim. It doesn't represent any of the people in the settlements, and there are 250,000 of them, or the people in the development towns. It doesn't represent the Yemenites, the Ethiopians, the Russians or the Mizrahim and Sephardim. It doesn't represent the right wing Ashkenazim and the settlers, who are mostly Ashkenazi as well. It doesn't represent the Americans. Most importantly it doesn't represent the religious Jews, the orthodox and black haters, the Hasidim, the Mitnagdim, the Lithuanians.

The Ashkenazi elite of Israel worked for a long time to destroy the soul of the country. Through self hatred and comparing the country to Nazi Germany they torn down the country from within for years. They settled the poorer immigrants on the borders in the 1950s and didn't arm them to fight the infiltrators that murdered and raped them. In the 1980s they drove up the prices of real estate inside the Green Line forcing the next generation of immigrants and vulnerable people to seek housing in the settlements. Those people who settled outside the green line they then called "Nazis" and "obstacles to peace" and bulldozed their houses and left them on the street. When the Russians came, some 1 million of them, they stuck them in new communities and settled them in areas that they were supposed to "judaize". But their communities, from Gilo to Nazareth Alit didn't become Jewish, they became areas of Arab migration where Russians, who have few children, either sold their homes to Muslims or gave their daughters in marriage to them. The entire Russian aliyah, 1 million strong, may not produce more than 200,000 children in the second generation, they are a community whose demographic decline is more severe than Russia itself.

But there is an Israel that is not fearful and has decided to stay. Some of them also have dual citizenship but they are not planning on "returning" to Europe. They know that Europe is the land that spit them out, the land that is littered with their graveyards, graveyards that are often defaced by the new favored, loved and coddled immigrants to Europe; Muslims. Whereas the Jews were crushed and destroyed the new immigrants to Europe receive amenities and welfare and support from the leftists in Europe, people who did nothing for the Jews when they lived their but do everything for those who hate Jews today. Those who will stay in Israel know that Europe offers nothing but a dead end and that there can be no return because it is not from whence the Jews came. Israel will be better off without the 23 percent, those who represent a parasitical elite, people who do not work but do protest, people who do not pitch in but call their fellow citizens "Nazis", those who run from terror rather than run towards it to prevent it. When the 23 percent have left the best people will be left behind, the good hard working people, the poor without foreign citizenship and the wealthy patriots, the settlers and the religious, those who know how to fight and those who want to fight. Those who love the land and those who are part of it and wish to lay down to be interred in it. There is no going back, no returning for these people. These people are home and they will remain home to face the threat.

2) What is wrong with the electric/hydro/green car industry?:

May 23, 2009

There is a lot of hype about electric cars or cars powered by hydrogen or wood or garbage. But with the hype is the obvious observation that none of these cars are affordable and most have a range of 40 miles and a top speed of a golf cart. However an exploration of the history of the original petrol fueled cars can tell us something about how long these cars may take to be affordable and useable. The question in the end is, should the government meddle in this industry and will it be successful so long as the petrol car is an alternative.

The continuing flailing about of attempts to make 'green' cars is the ever present adoration of the media. Each week sees another new "invention" and another wonderful miracle on wheels that has no petrol and whose only pollutant is a few drops of clean water. The latest in a long line of these programs on the 'car of the future' was a BBC program on a hydro car in California. The car in question seems more reasonable than some of her cousins. It has a range of around 160-200 miles, burns on Hydrogen (the same substance used to power the Hindenburg) and can reach a top speed of 85 miles per hour. This is leaps and bounds above some other electronic cars which have a range of some 40 miles and reach a top speed of 35miles per hour, basically a glorified golf cart. Come to think of it we already had golf carts, which are battery powered, so is this such an innovation?

The problem with this industry, even when it is backed up by government funding and the major auto companies, is that it doesn't provide a car anyone wants to drive, because despite the technology the cars don't have the range or power of cars fueled by gasoline. Furthermore the development costs of these cars are astronomical and they are thus cost prohibitive to buy. As if that were not enough some of them require replacing the fuel cells every few years, yet another cost. And as if that were not enough, there is no place to "fuel" these cars. There are no charging points for the electric ones and no gas stations for the hydro ones. The industry is a great failure, almost as great as the old car industry in the U.S, which is a complete failure.

However the seeming failure should be seen in light of the original invention of the automobile and the barriers it had cross in order to become a mass market invention available to the average consumer. Let's consider this history. The first automobiles were experimented with in the 1860s and 1870s in Europe and the U.S. There were steam powered vehicles even in the 18th century, and in fact steam was used to power locomotives and ships.

However the modern gas powered car using the internal combustion engine was only first put to use in 1860 by a Frenchman. In the 1880s Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz were both working on perfecting motorcycles and tricycles in Germany, powered with the gas cylinders first invented in the 1860s. Petrol engines were used in trams and carriages and also for fire engines. But there were no cars. Only in 1893 was the first gasoline powered car driving on America's streets, and there was only one prototype of these. In 1896 Henry Ford built his first car and sold it the first year. But it was until 1903 that he sold another. In these days, according to one report, almost every major town in the U.S. had a "mad scientist" working on his own car. Automobile companies such as the Duryea Motor Wagon, came and went.

In 1899 Olds Motor Vehicle established a successful production making the "Curved Dash MotorWagon", a sort of large bucket on four wheels that apparently turned a profit. By 1904 they were selling 5,000 a year. The years 1906 t 1925 represent the beginnings of the automobile industry. However these early cars, such as those made by the Duryeas and Rolls Royce, could only be purchased by the elite. Ford's Model K of 1907 for instance was priced at $65,000 in today's currency. By 1909 Ford's Model T was selling at around 18,000 a year. By 1920 Ford was producing a million cars a year.

The ability of people to buy cars was linked to being able to re-fuel them. To that end the first gas station was built in St. Louis in 1905. The second was built by Standard Oil in 1907. Earlier attempts at selling gas to consumers was actually as a side business at pharmacies in Germany the 1890s.

But consider the inefficiency of the early cars in fuel consumption. The Model T got about 13-20 miles per gallon (5 to 9 km per litre). It had a 10 gallon tank. Thus its maximum range was only 200 miles. It could drive at a top speed of 45 miles per hour.

If we consider the length of time that modern car development took and the time it took before the average consumer could both afford and refuel it we see that it took some 40 years or more. If we consider that Iceland built the first commercial Hydro-fuel station in 2003 we are experiencing a similar slow-revolution in the direction of these 'renewable energies'. Those prophets of electric cars and hydro gas are correct that economies of scale should bring the prices down, just as they have done with computers. The problem is that unlike cars, which were a true revolution from the days of the horse-drawn wagon, the development of new technologies today is not a great leap from the existing gasoline powered cars. Because the new technologies do not compete, but are in fact more expensive and rudimentary, it presents a real barrier to success in the market place. The government believes that it can intervene in this fight, making fuel efficiency standards higher and taxing gasoline or giving tax credits. However the success of the first automobiles were not helped through government intervention. Thus the government mandate for electric cars may not aid their entrance into the market, but slow and hinder it.

Seth J. Frantzman is a graduate student in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, living in Jerusalem. Contact him at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website: http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com These essays are from Terra Incognita #87.

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, May 30, 2009.

When Paul Newman died, they said how great he was but they failed to mention he considered himself Jewish (born half-Jewish).

When the woman (Helen Suzman) who helped Nelson Mandela died last week, they said how great she was but they failed to mention she was Jewish.

When Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Martha Stewart, Randy Cunningham, Gov. Edwards, Conrad Black, Senator Keating, Gov Ryan, and Gov Blagojevich messed up, no one told me what religion or denomination they were because they were not Jewish.

When Ivan Boesky or Andrew Fastow or Bernie Madoff committed fraud, almost every article mentioned they were Jewish.

This reminds me of a famous Einstein quote — In 1921, Albert Einstein presented a paper on his then-infant Theory of Relativity at the Sorbonne, the prestigious French university.

"If I am proved correct," he said, "the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss will call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist. If relativity is proved wrong, the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German, and the Germans will call me a Jew."

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steve Kramer, May 30, 2009.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Obama — the guy that groveled to the Saudi King and is murmuring to the Iranians — has decreed that there is to be no natural growth in Samaria and Judea (AKA the West Bank.) There are now 128 Jewish communities in Samaria and Judea, with a population of almost 300,000 Jews. 18 Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem are included in this ukase, although Israeli Arabs, of course, continue to buy and build everywhere in Jerusalem. Obama now insists these towns and communities not build housing or schools or synagogues. Obviously, the U.S.A. administration has decided that the Palestinian state they intend to create will be free of Jews and it will be built on all the land the "Palestinians" currently claim in the Territories. (They actually claim all of Israel, but that's for the next big diplomatic step.) And they are to have a swatch of Jerusalem as their "capitol."]


"Natural growth" is an important subject when it comes to relations between America and Israel. In a nutshell, Israel's greatest ally insists that Israel not enlarge any settlements in Jewish communities beyond the Green Line, nor build any new ones. Israel agrees, but considers that natural growth within existing legal communities is okay. (There are scores of tiny Jewish enclaves that Israel has already declared to be illegal and has promised to dismantle, although this is easier said than done.)

Natural growth in Israel refers to space to accommodate adult children who want to settle near their families. Escalating criticism is being leveled against this concept by the Obama administration, as well as by many liberal Jews. They say, "Where is it written that a right exists to live near your family or in your home town?" I'll grant that in America, this doesn't seem to be important. It's a different story in Israel.

In America, many families are separated by several thousand miles and rarely see each other. But in Israel, which is roughly the size and shape of New Jersey, most families live within a half hour's drive of each other and frequently have dinner together at least a few times each month, if not weekly. Close proximity to family members and frequent visits are much more common in Israel than in America.

Family size is another factor which makes natural growth important to Israelis. In Israel, with the highest fertility rate of all Western countries, the typical family has three children. Among the twenty per cent of the population who are religious, the birthrate is even higher. Huge apartment blocs, from two-bedroom units to those with up to five bedrooms, are very common. These blocs have been built on both sides of the Green Line because developers utilize vacant space within the communities for projects geared to young married couples. In many Israeli cities, government-subsidized apartment projects for young couples are under construction or are in the planning stages.

Natural growth is very important for Arab families throughout the Middle East. Householders enlarge their homes until they resemble small apartment houses, adding quarters for young married couples, their parents, and their grandchildren. Jews share the regional desire to keep their families in close proximity.

Perhaps the most obvious reason Israelis build over the Green Line is that unused space is available WITHIN existing communities. Israel expects to retain these communities when and if a peace agreement is finalized with the Palestinians. (Let me remind my readers that prior to the Six Day War of 1967, all of Israel's villages, towns, and cities were within the Green Line — there were no "settlements" until after Israel won that defensive war.) Currently, about ten per cent of Israeli Jews live beyond the Green Line.

The Palestinians and other Arabs must come to terms with Israel's retaining its significant communities in the disputed areas. The Arabs must also give up the idea of a Palestinian right of return to Israel. For its part, Israel must find a way to convince the Arabs and its allies that these are immovable Israeli demands.

The current brouhaha about natural growth is a smokescreen for the real dispute over Israel's borders. New construction doesn't enlarge the Israeli settlements, it just increases their population. Since the end of the 19th century, long before the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 which paved the way for the modern state of Israel, the Arabs vociferously objected to Jews occupying (their word) ANY land in their midst. The only Arab countries to come to terms with Israel's existence, Egypt and Jordan, do so strictly because of the money they receive from Western countries, the EU, and the UN. In neither country is there any popular support for recognition of Israel. In fact, the rejection of Israel is rampant throughout both populations and in all of their organizations, except among the formal diplomatic establishment.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recently said, "President Obama wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly." The new American administration is loudly saying what the Arabs want to hear. The administration wants to change Israel's policy on building inside settlements and they seem determined to use political and economic pressure to achieve this.

Obama's intention to force Israel to stop ALL construction beyond the Green Line is seen as the "solution" which would bring about a Palestinian state, which his administration believes is the key to solving the problems in the Middle East. But leaning on Israel won't produce a Palestinian state for the simple reason that it's not in Israel's power to create such a state. True, it's easier to coerce Israeli politicians than Palestinian ones. That's because Israelis are not doctrinaire, while Palestinians all speak with one voice: "It's the occupation (that prevents a Palestinian state)." Nevertheless, the Palestinians haven't developed the institutions necessary to run a state. More fundamentally, they haven't stopped hating Jews enough to start building state.

The biggest obstacle of all to a Palestinian state today is the enmity between Hamas, which controls Gaza, and Fatah, which has a tenuous hold on the West Bank. This is closely followed by the simmering dispute between the younger generation of Fatah and the "old guard" Palestinian Authority leader, Mahmoud Abbas. If Prime Minister Netanyahu capitulated completely to President Obama's demands and said, "Let there be a Palestinian state," I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for "Palestine" to come into being. Clearly, preventing Israelis beyond the Green Line from building inside existing communities isn't the "make or break" determinant for Palestinian statehood, despite the Obama administration's desire to quickly bring peace to the region.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, May 30, 2009.

This comes from Gateway Pundit
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/ pravda-mocks-us-decent-into-marxism-at.html

The original article was written by Stanislav Mishin for the Russian-language newspaper, Pravda. (Pravda is not a government newspaper.)


If only we had a fair and balanced media outlet like Pravda.

The last time we heard from this former Soviet news agency they were commenting on how there was major bias by the US media in this past year's national elections.

Now they are warning America about creeping Marxism. You wouldn't dare see a US journalist do this. They'd risk getting dragged from the airport tarmac if they did. The reporters at Pravda are mocking America's decent into Marxism at breakneck speed:

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics.

Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives.

They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Hands Fiasco, May 29, 2009.

This comes from Stan Goodenough, editor of Jerusalem Watchman a Christian Zionist newspaper based in Jerusalem.


What will history record?

That in mid-May, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to the United States to make a priority of stopping Iran from pursuing the nuclear bomb that threatens Israel's existence.

That the Obama administration refused.

And that just over one week later, America was standing on the edge of a potential nuclear conflict with North Korea, which test-fired an atomic warhead and launched a handful of surface-to-surface missiles in a defiant show of force.

Let me be clear: I do not claim that what I am about to write is "a word from the Lord." Some of the thoughts I will express here have simply "dropped into my head" over the last 24 hours; they came without any leading from a third party and, while they resonate in my spirit, they have not been confirmed by two or three witnesses; or even one. Nor have I had any dreams or visions about this. See below.*

On May 18, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in the White House with the president of the United States, Barack Obama. Both the run-up to and aftermath of that much anticipated meeting have been spun every which way by the media, with a solid majority of columnists and talk show hosts focusing in on "the relationship," on "reading between the lines" and on analyzing the "body language" between the two.

Some harked back to the days when frigid winds blew in the Clinton White House after a Netanyahu visit during the Israeli's first tenure in office. Would "Bibi" again forget his "place?" Watchers saw a nervous "regional power medium weight" sitting opposite a self-assured "global superpower heavyweight," and they gave the American kudos for not allowing Netanyahu to "deflect" him from the "real obstacle to peace," that is, Jewish settlements. To other observers,Netanyahu strongly withstood the not inconsiderable pressures an American administration can bring to bear. He stuck to his guns, refused to subscribe to the "two-state solution" and should have been welcomed home as a hero. (He wasn't.)

There was more; much more analysis, from serious reporters and from the fringe, underscoring why the profession is often referred to as a media circus.

But let's put aside the fluff of press predilections and spinmeister speculations, and get to the substance of what's really taken place. It's a matter of gravest consequence.

Netanyahu didn't go to the White House seeking a photo opportunity. He went to ask for American leadership and support in dealing with the out-of-control Iranian nuclear threat that is primarily directed against the Jewish state.

From the day of his inauguration on March 31, Netanyahu has been looking for Washington to take Iran seriously. "If you don't stop Iran, I'll have to," he messaged Obama, just hours before being sworn in. Instead of responding appropriately, the American dissembled. Get going with the two-state solution, Obama shot back, and we'll be better able to deal with Tehran. This was Obama's response too when the two leaders spoke to the press after their May 18 meeting. Netanyahu said "the worst danger Israel faces is that Iran would develop nuclear military capabilities." "Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable. It threatens the moderate Arab regimes in the Middle East. It threatens US interests worldwide. But if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella to terrorists or worse, could actually give them nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril." Netanyahu's position was that it was necessary to deal with Iran first, and with the "Palestinian" question later.

Obama publicly disputed him. "If there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way," the American said. "To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians — between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat."

The president went on to suggest that he might reassess his "let's talk" approach to Iran if, by year's end, there was no sign it was having an affect. Netanyahu expressed his appreciation, but administration officials "close to Obama" later quickly emphasized that no deadline had been set.

What, in fact, do we have here?

Israel's leader has asked the US to help stop Iran from acquiring the means to inflict a holocaust on the Jews.

America's leader is not willing to go that way. On the contrary, as The Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick wrote, the Obama "administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy." Two days after Netanyahu met with Obama, Iran successfully test fired a 'Sajil' surface-to-surface missile with a 1,200 mile range. Israel is less than 1000 miles from Iran.

Two days later, on May 22, a public survey indicated that one in four Israelis is so fearful of the specter of a nuclear Iran that they plan to leave their homeland forever if the mullahs get their hands on the bomb.

On May 24 Iran's former Revolutionary Guards chief Mohsen Rezai warned that his country "understands missiles and tanks as well as foreign policy and knows exactly where Israel's sensitive spots are. It could stop them forever with one strike."

On May 25, a grim-faced Bibi told his cabinet: If we don't deal with Iran, no one will.

On May 27, a new poll found that 51 percent of Israelis want the IDF to strike Iran's nuclear facilities now. This despite Bibi's warning to expect a large number of Israeli casualties if a strike goes down. Iranians have boasted that they have the capability to destroy Israel within just 11 days.

Also on May 27, Iran deployed six warships and other vessels into international waters in what Fox News called a "saber-rattling" move. For five days this coming week the world, and specifically the United States government, will watch the Israeli nation ready for full scale war in the largest ever national military exercise since 1948.

But Netanyahu's appeal for America to step up to the plate has fallen on deaf ears. Instead, the Obama administration finds the idea of "reaching out to the Muslim world" more appealing just now. And it knows that one of the most effective ways it can do that is by pushing Israel into compliance with the 'Arab Peace Initiative.'

Thus did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emphasize Wednesday the American "expectation" that Israel would immediately comply with the Arab demand that it halt any and all settlement activity. President Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions," Clinton said. "We think it is in the best interests [of the peace process] that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly. … And we intend to press that point."

Do they?

How interesting then, that exactly one week after spurning Israel's appeal, the United States this week suddenly finds itself confronting a nuclear-detonating, missile launching North Korea?

Is it really just happenstance that Hillary Clinton Wednesday evening, at the same news conference, in almost the same breath, was leveling stern warnings at both Jerusalem and Pyongyang? Or is Someone Else fighting for Israel? History will tell.


But now, thus says the LORD, who created you, O Jacob,
And He who formed you, O Israel:
Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by your name;
You are Mine.
When you pass through the waters, I will be with you;
And through the rivers, they shall not overflow you.
When you walk through the fire, you shall not be burned,
Nor shall the flame scorch you.
For I am the LORD your God,
The Holy One of Israel, your Savior;
I gave Egypt for your ransom,
Ethiopia and Seba in your place.
Since you were precious in My sight,
You have been honored,
And I have loved you;
Therefore I will give men for you,
And people for your life.
(Isaiah 43:1-4)

Therefore please hear this, you afflicted,
And drunk but not with wine.
Thus says your Lord,
The LORD and your God,
Who pleads the cause of His people:
See, I have taken out of your hand
The cup of trembling,
The dregs of the cup of My fury;
You shall no longer drink it.
But I will put it into the hand of those who afflict you,
Who have said to you,[a]
'Lie down, that we may walk over you.'
And you have laid your body like the ground,
And as the street, for those who walk over.
(Isaiah 51:21-23)


* When, in 2004/5, the Sharon government was preparing to uproot the Jews of Gaza, destroy their homes and hand over that territory to the Palestinian Arabs, I widely — in my writing and in meetings across the United States — expressed my strong feelings that the Disengagement would not happen, that God would not let it take place. I based my position strongly on God's word through the prophet Amos when He said:

"...I will plant them in their land, and no longer shall they be pulled up from the land I have given them," says the LORD your God. (Amos 9:15).

It was also clear to me that God had, in the 1967 Six Day War, miraculously restored Gaza (and Judea and Samaria and "East" Jerusalem) to Jewish sovereign rule after nearly 2000 years. Despite the mounting evidence before my eyes that the plan was going to be executed, I held to the conviction it would not take place. It did, of course. And not long afterwards I was challenged by an emotional fellow believer who told me: "You had better publicly confess that you were wrong when you said God told you that there would be no Disengagement." In fact, to the very best of my recollection, I had never said that God told me anything of the sort. All along I had expressed MY thoughts; MY sense, MY conviction, even MY belief. But I never said that God had spoken.

Following that uprooting I watched, mesmerized, as Hurricane Katrina prepared to unleash its devastating fury on the south-eastern United States. Deep inside I just KNEW that this was the Divine response to years of America's relentless pushing of Israel that had culminated in the Gaza disaster. Did God TELL me it was Him? Maybe He did — through what I read in the Bible and through the spiritual witness shared by so many others — among them Katrina's victims — that this was indeed God's judgment. Even so, what I did as the hurricane roared ashore in Louisiana was ask the question: Was Katrina the 'fist of God?' However certain I may be of the answer to that question, I never claimed to have heard from Heaven God saying "the storm is My response." One day we will know.

Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Milton Franks-Lhermann, May 29, 2009.

Dear Colleagues,

I have been reading our communications (and watching TV and listening to the radio and reading the paper) for quite some time. I've been rather struck by reports that BHusseinO and HillaryC DEMAND that we in Israel will do or won't do something or some things.

My immediate thought every time is "Who the hell do these people think they are — to DEMAND"? "Our parents?" They can request, advise, even threaten but their demands are equivalent to buckets of horse manure dumped into a farm wagon.

I suggest that we will refrain from discussing (see below) these noises coming out of Washington and patiently wait for the farm wagon to enter the white house gate and deliver its load to the rose garden, where it can do some good.

The article below was written by Richard Baehr, chief political correspondent of American Thinker. It appeared today in the American Thinker

Good luck to us all,


Does Barack Obama believe Israel is a sovereign state? Wednesday, his diplomatic mouthpiece Hillary Clinton said Israel must stop all settlement activity — outposts, new settlements and natural growth of existing settlements.

What exactly is natural growth of existing settlements? It means adding a new room to a home within the boundaries of a settlement if a family gets larger, say though a new baby, or building a new home in this settlement, if a couple gets married.

In essence, Obama is now telling Israelis not to have children and not to marry. Such a friend. Does anyone really believe that adding on that new room or that new home, is what has stopped the Arabs and Palestinians from making peace with Israel the last 40 years?

Virtually all Americans, whether from the Clinton or Bush administrations, who have participated in The Israeli Palestinian negotiating track since the Oslo process began, have accepted that most of the settlements near the green line will become part of Israel if a peace deal is reached. Is Obama signaling that he believes the 1949 armistice lines should be the new boundaries of Israel, as demanded in the Arab League proposal?

There really are only two conclusions to draw from this new American chokehold on Israel. One is that Obama and his people are stupid (that's right: fools, despite all the fancy degrees) in believing that peace is at hand if only all settlement growth ended. The other is that they really mean to put the screws to Israel, and are looking for an opening to create conflict between the nations (excuse me, between the US and its vassal).

But hey, 78% of Jews voted for this guy. You know who you are.

Why would Obama want to screw with Israel? Two possibilities here as well. One is that he was never a friend, despite all that money and support that came into his campaign from the adoring liberal Jewish masses. Some of us (think Ed Lasky) kept warning last year, that all those years with Bill Ayers, and Reverend Wright, and Samantha Power, and Rashid Khalidi, and Ali Abunimah, maybe, just maybe, shaped Obama a bit on the Israeli Palestinian issue.

After all, our most empathetic President tends to see the world in terms of winners and losers, the haves and have nots. And on that power equation he has to love the Palestinians.

The other explanation gets back to stupidity. Could Obama actually believe that our enemies in the Muslim world will start playing nice if only we distance ourselves from Israel? Could he be that naive? Do the Taliban care about the natural growth of settlements? Does Al Qaeda? Would Ahmadinejad embrace Israel if only natural growth of settlements ceased?

What is particularly distressing is how Democrats in Congress, ostensibly such great friends of Israel when they send out campaign fundraising letters, are now lining up with Obama on the settlements issue. Why would they do this?

I think it is because Israel is not really a top concern, just as it is not for many American Jews. For liberal politicians, and liberal Jews, global warming, and single payer government health care matter, not the survival of Israel.

The clock is ticking on Iran's nuclear program. Any of you have faith Obama will lift a finger to stop the mullah's march to the bomb? Will the US allow Israeli jets to over fly Iraq if it decides to attack Iran? Count me as a skeptic.

But hey, why worry? We may soon have cap and trade, and the planet will heal, and new national healthcare that will spend the country into oblivion. Who cares abut Israeli babies, or for that matter Israelis of any age?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, May 29, 2009.

This email came from Ganesh Sahathevan.

The article below was posted by B. Raman, who is Additional Secretary (ret'd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, currently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com). It is archived at
http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/05/ obama-counter-insurgency-in-chinese.html


Nothing illustrates more starkingly the helplessness and confusion that prevails in the corridors of the Obama Administration over its Af-Pak policy than a report carried by the Los Angeles Times on May 25, 2009, regarding a recent visit which Richard C. Holbrooke, the Administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, is reported to have made to China and Saudi Arabia in pursuance of his mandate.

2. To quote a news agency message based on the report carried by the LA Times: "The Obama Administration has appealed to China to provide training and even military equipment to help Pakistan counter a growing militant threat, US officials said. .....Richard C Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, has visited China and Saudi Arabia, another key ally, in recent weeks as part of the effort, says Paul Richter of LAT. The American appeal to China underscores the country's importance in security issues. The United States considers China to be the most influential country for dealing with militaristic North Korea. China also plays a crucial role in the international effort to pressure Iran over its nuclear ambitions......A senior US official, while acknowledging China's hesitation to become more deeply involved, said, "You can see that they're thinking about it." He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivity of the subject. US officials believe China is skilled at counterinsurgency, a holdover of the knowledge gained during the country's lengthy civil war that ended with a Communist victory in 1949. And with China's strong military ties with Pakistan, US officials hope Beijing could help craft a more sophisticated strategy than Pakistan's current heavy-handed approach."

3. I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read that the Obama Administration believed that "China is skilled in counter-insurgency", that it acquired its skills during its "war of liberation" against the KMT troops and that it can teach Pakistan "a more sophisticated strategy than Pakistan's current heavy-handed approach."

4. What do the Chinese regard as terrorism or insurgency? Which are the terrorist/insurgent organisations in their perception? Anyone, who has been following Chinese methods of internal security management would know that in the Chinese assessment there are two "terrorist/insurgent" organisations posing a threat to China's internal security — the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), which they project as no different from Al Qaeda in its modus operandi and the Islamic Movement of East Turkestan (IMET) of the Uighurs. Since the pro-Dalai Lama uprising in the Tibetan-inhabited areas of China in March, 2008, the Chinese have been repeatedly and consistently condemning the TYC as a terrorist organisation. They have arrested a large number of Tibetan monks and youth and mass trials have been going on. If Obama and his advisers want to have details of what the Chinese have been doing in Tibet since March, 2008, under the pretext of counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency, all they have to do is to read the transcripts of the broadcasts of Radio Free Asia funded by the US State Department and to read the various statements issued by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his followers. Does the Obama Administration consider this as skilful and sophisticated counter-insurgency techniques?

5. What the Chinese have been doing against the Uighurs in the Xinjiang Province? Indiscriminate arrests, trials and executions. To get details, Obama and his advisers should read the periodic reports of the Human Rights Watch, which is a reputed non-Governmental organisation of the US, and the annual reports of the US State Department on human rights in China. The Chinese counter-insurgency strategy against the Uighurs is based on the principle "catch and kill". That was why the George Bush Administration refused to hand over to China the Uighur jihadis arrested in Afghanistan. The entire community of the human rights organisations of the West was against their being handed over to China since they apprehended that the Chinese would execute them. That was why Albania was persuaded to give sanctuary to these Uighurs.

6. There are two components to the Chinese counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism strategy in Xinjiang — "catch and kill" and impose restrictions on the practice of Islam. Under this policy of restrictions, construction of new mosques is not allowed, many old mosques have been forced to close down under the pretext that they were constructed illegally and the people are forced to observe their holy fast inside their houses and not to congregate in public places. This is China's "skilful and sophisticated" counter-insurgency.

7. IF Pakistan follows even some of these methods, the day will not be far off when Pakistan will become a State ruled by a combine of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. As it is, there is considerable anti-US and anti-Army anger in Pakistan. Instead of finding ways of containing and reducing this anger, the Obama Administration is coming out with shocking ideas such as "Counter-insurgency in Chinese colours", which could make an already difficult situation even more difficult to handle.

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is alaso associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 29, 2009.


Not for the first time, Egyptian police arrested someone suspected of involvement in Hamas' kidnapping of an Israeli soldier or of knowing the prisoner's whereabouts. Egyptian sources say that the police are trying to help Israel recover the prisoner
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/19).

What shall we make of this? Is Egypt, formerly a repeat aggressor against Israel now at peace with Israel and an ally of Israel's? Is Egypt, formerly a sponsor and supplier of terrorism, now against terrorism? No to both.

Egypt does hope that Israel would destroy Iran's nuclear facilities for it, though it has a first class air force and probably could do it, itself. Egypt does not want terrorists to subvert its government or attack its tourists. But Egypt remains the chief diplomatic enemy of Israel and still allows arms to be smuggled into Gaza.

I interpret Egypt's behavior about the prisoner as tactical measures, not part of strategic accommodation. First, Arab rulers like the prestige of mediating, even if nothing comes of it. Mediating in this case makes Egypt seem on the side of peace.

Second, if Egypt can help get the prisoner released, the transaction likely would be part of some deal, in which the Arabs get far more in return.

The State Dept. acts similarly.
(Egyptian relations with some Mideastern states: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~


The UN was denounced for Durban II perpetuating antisemitism in Durban I. The Human Rights Commissioner tried to rehabilitate her reputation. She:

1. Said that Durban II did not mention Israel and did not focus only on one issue. However, it reaffirmed Durban I, which falsely accused only Israel of racism. Therefore, when referring to "victims of racism," Durban II is calumniating Israel.

2. At Durban II, Iran's President falsely called Zionism racism. Then Durban II did mention Israel or its stand-in, Zionism.

3. Her press release claimed a consensus. Not true, either. Delegates from some democratic states walked out.

4. She said the Conference opposed all forms of racism. Actually, it refused to discuss specifics except for Zionism. "The silence of its outcome on egregious manifestations of racism — including discrimination against Tibetans, ethnic cleansing of Berbers and Bahais, genocide in Darfur, slavery victimizing migrants and minorities in the Arab world, and the murder and expulsion of Jews from Arab lands — is deafening." (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/10 from Hudson Institute in New York). Other indication of UN bias on human rights:


Israel has been cultivating relations with Central Asian countries. In the early 1990s, Israel established diplomatic relations with Turkmenistan. It trains Turkmen in agriculture. Relations warming, Israel is opening an embassy in Ashkabat, the capital (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/20).

Israel is tolerant. It tries to develop good relations with Muslim governments. When Israel exchanges diplomatic relations with one, Israel heralds the achievement as an example of the "peace process" taking effect.

During times of publicized friction between Israel and some Arabs, however, some Muslim states break off or restrict relations with Israel. Sometimes the Muslim states hold relations hostage to an Israeli concession to the Arabs. Praise for the "peace process" was premature.


Israel removed 140 checkpoints and roadblocks last year and others this year, including two by Ramallah. The stated purpose is to ease life for the Palestinian Arabs. PM Netanyahu said Israel would east conditions consistent with security (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis,5/11).

To ease Arab life, Israel removed its troops from cities in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) right after signing the Oslo peace agreement. The result was anarchy and a wave of terrorism in Israel.

In 1997, Netanyahu, PM then, too, removed Israeli troops from most of Hebron. A few years later, Arabs in the hills fired down into the Hebron Jewish community. The attacks lasted for two and-a-half years.

About four years ago, for the sake of Arab freedom of movement and in the hope of peace, Israel not only withdrew its troops from Gaza and northern Samaria, it expelled almost 10,000 Jewish residents. Gaza Arabs got freedom of movement, and self-rule. They went over to Hamas, which launched more than 10,000 rockets and mortars at Israeli cities.

To improve Arab living conditions, Israeli officials proposed re-opening to Arab traffic the road leading past the Jewish community of Hebron. Arabs are likely to try running over Jews there. Jews there staged demonstrations against the proposal (David Wilder, spokesman, Hebron Jewish Community, 5/13).

Israel's security director deferred the re-opening because he said it would pose a security risk to Jews in Hebron. He thus confirmed their concern. He also implied confirmation of accusations that the officials who had ordered the road re-opened to Arab traffic were putting Arab convenience before Jewish lives (Hebron Jewish Community, 5/19).

Checkpoint removal is not consistent with security. The US, which demands removal, complains, whatever Israel does, that it is not enough.


While the U.S. sent envoys to try to come to terms with Syria, Al-Qaida brought terrorists into Iraq by way of Syria. The U.S. believes that Syrian intelligence permitted this. The U.S. renewed sanctions against Syria
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/11).


The media claims that Jewish construction is proceeding in Judea-Samaria as if unrestricted by promises to the US not to expand settlements. [Peace Now has claimed that Israel or Israelis build excessive numbers of houses in Judea-Samaria, houses unable to be sold.]

Jewish leaders there claim that construction is greatly restricted. To add a room, a Jew now needs the Defense Minister's permission. Not often granted. Israel has reduced funds for the Territories. Most newlyweds there have to move far from their communities, even beyond the Territories. This is subtle expulsion (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/11).


Lebanese security forces arrested several groups of alleged spies for Israel. They were able to do it because of greater internal cooperation among various security forces. They also had gotten U.S. training in security matters, part of the billion dollars the U.S. has given Lebanon in the past few years.

Israel warned the U.S. that aid to Lebanon would end up benefiting Hizbullah
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/11).

U.S. aid to the PLO ended up benefiting Hamas.


"With the two-state solution, in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People? What will become of all the sacrifices they made — just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward." (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, from MEMRI from PLO Ambassador to Lebanon, 5/14).

The "two-state solution" is a fraud. The Ambassador reveals Muslim Arab duplicity and a better understanding of Zionism than do many Jews.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Modieabc, May 29, 2009.

This was written by Eitan Haber, an Israeli journalist and publicist, who writes on military matters. It appeared in YNET

Israeli leaders must understand the broad implications of North Korean nuke test


One needs to be deaf, blind, and an idiot at this time in order not to understand that the nuclear bomb tested in North Korea two days ago also exploded in the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem.

The North Koreans blatantly disregarded the Americans and publicly presented them as a meaningless power, yet officials in Jerusalem are still reciting the "Road Map" and making note of the evacuation of some minor West Bank outpost. The world is changing before our eyes, yet here we see Knesset members earnestly explaining that the Americans will agree that we stay in Judea and Samaria if we only evacuate some tin shacks.

Two days ago, in North Korea, World War III officially got underway — the war that would pit "crazy" states such as North Korea and Iran, for example, against states we shall characterize as "moderate," including Egypt, Gulf states, and Saudi Arabia, which at this time leads the Arab initiative for peace with Israel.

Ever since Sunday, the world has gone crazy, and this crazy world is monitoring with horror the struggle between the "moderate" and "crazy" states. The problem is that some of those crazy states — Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea — already have, or will have, a nuclear button to push, while the moderates, headed by the United States, are not eager to rush into battle.

Why? Because America is already entangled in wars, and there was someone who recently won the presidential elections there, among other reasons because he pledged to remove US troops from the Iraqi and Afghani quagmire. That same president promised that we shall live in a world free of nuclear weapons. Remember that?

A Gordian knot

This is the same North Korea that spat in America's face three years ago, and this week it did it again. Based on the reactions in Washington (unless they are part of a deception campaign,) it doesn't appear that the great America will respond. Now all we need is for Iran to blatantly disregard America and Israel in order to prompt us to slide into real emergency turmoil (as opposed to the drill planned for the coming days.)

Iran is here already. There is a direct and intimate link between the Korean bomb and the planned Iranian bomb; between Iran's and North Korea's spit in America's face, Washington's desire and ability to lead the fight against the crazy world, and the Israeli government's conduct.

One does not need to be a supporter or rival of the settlement enterprise in the territories to understand this Gordian knot — and the question is whether we want the American sword to undo it for us.

If the answer is positive, we need to be familiar with the Americans to realize that three tin huts removed from the Maoz Ester outpost are not good enough.

Contact modieabc at modieabc@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, May 29, 2009.
This item appeared yesterday in NewsMax

The manager of a prominent Nashville hotel cancelled a contract with a conservative foundation to hold a conference this weekend on radical Islam, apparently after learning that the group would feature a keynote address by controversial Dutch parliamentarian and filmmaker, Geert Wilders.

Muslim groups succeeded in preventing Wilders from screening "Fitna," his 15-minute movie on radical Islam, in the House of Lords this February, on claims it was insulting to Muslims, and dogged him during a recent U.S. tour as well.

Thomas A. Negri, managing director of Loew's Vanderbilt Hotel and Office complex in Nashville, told Newsmax on Wednesday that he had taken the extraordinary step of cancelling the conference at the last minute "for the health, safety and well-being of our guests and employees."

Negri refused to say why he felt the conference would adversely affect the "health, safety and well-being" of the hotel's guests and employees, except to refer to the website of the New English Review, the group organizing the conference.

The website features articles that warn about radical Islam written by activists, journalists and scholars, including former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, and former Muslim scholar, Ibn Warraq.

One article, written by a retired U.S. army intelligence officer, Jerome Gordon, warns of the growing problems caused by the recent influence of several thousand Somali Muslim refugees who have come to work for a nearby Tysons Food plant to replace illegal Hispanic meat packers.

Negri appeared at a 2003 pro-immigration event on the same dias with a well-known Somali warlord, Gordon told Newsmax.

In a written statement to the conference organizers, Negri said that the hotel had "not received any information related to a specific security threat concerning this event," and declined to provide any justification for cancelling it at the last minute.

One of the conference organizers told Newsmax on Wednesday that the group was considering a lawsuit against Negri and the Loew's hotel chain for "unlawful breach of contract."

Negri also serves on the board of advisors of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, TIRRC, an activist group that states its mission "is to empower immigrants and refugees throughout Tennessee to develop a unified voice" and "defend their rights."

The group boasts of having helped to defeat an "English only" amendment this January that would have required all Nashville government communications to be in English.

Earlier this month, the group won an award from the Migration Policy Institute, which is funded by grants form the J.M. Kaplan Fund, a left-wing group that also funds the ACLU, the Tides Foundation, the Tides Center, the Sierra Club, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and other left-wing causes.

The award singles out TIRRC for its "Welcoming Tennessee Initiative," to"foster constructive public dialogue on immigration within the state."

When asked if he objected to Geert Wilders appearance at the conference, Negri refused to comment.

In a recent interview with FoxNews, Wilders complained that Europe "has pampered" Muslim immigrants. "If you want to come and stay here, that's okay, but only if you adhere to our values, our principles, our laws… and our constitution," he said. "With all the tolerance we are having, we are also tolerant to the intolerant."

Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Molly, May 29, 2009.

... will make a fool out of our president and we are more than concerned that Obama will cover up the same way Shimon Peres does when he, too, finds himself conned, cornered, and humiliated, which is to say that Obama, like Peres, will pretend that Saudi spittle is rain in his face. The Saudis have gotten away with their lies and spitting in the face of everyone who defies their oil monopoly because the World created its economy based on the consumption of oil.

Abu Mazen, now pulling faces and grimacing for his photo-ops, is as slick as his Saudi-sponsored friend, Jimmy Carter. Carter and Shimon Peres pushed themselves onto the realm of the bloody Egyptian assassin, Yasser Arafat so they could all engage in the highly profitable business of pretending to be "friends for peace." Peres, with his eyes on his hoped-for prize, even went so far as to promote the Saudi myth that Israel was to blame for Arab blight. This ersatz friendship was highly profitable for Carter and his NGOs and they received millions from the Saudis. Shimon Peres haggled until they gave him the tail of the chicken, and Yasser received billions from the oily arabs for building his armed forces for to slaughter Jewish and Muslim Israelis and billions more from the US treasury for "humanitarian aid" which Arafat siphoned into his secret accounts in banks all throughout Europe, Cayman, and the US. When he died, billions of US-source funds simply disappeared.

Obama either doesn't know the facts about how Israel was cheated out of its lands and its sovereign rights, or else he doesn't want to know, in which latter case he is about to transform himself into a threat to democracy and American values. We hope Mr. Obama is smart enough to avoid being bribed or manipulated or subjected to extortion by the Saudis and the UAE.

The Saudis had to have known about the plans of the Saudi al Q cells that attacked the US because of its extensive spy and intelligence "agencies" — more sophisticated, we fear, than the US. One fact is clear, the Saudis have been spying on the US far longer than the US has spied on them.

Abbas is a threat to democracy and crazy as a fox. We trust Israel will not budge nor succumb to his tawdry extortion or any US "pressure."

This time, the so-called "palestinians" must be pushed back to Jordan, from whence they began when the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan was created in 1948. Jordan was always intended to be the "other state" for the arabs who wanted to be transformed into "palestinians." The Jewish Palestinians were attacked by the arabs and the became refugees and fled to Israel to become Israelis. The BBC and the Brits and Reuters have tried every trick known to yellow-sheet news to conceal the truthful history of the Middle East. They never mention the fate of the Jewish Palestinians. After the then "king: of Jordan exterminated 10,000 would-be "palestinians" the remainder were herded into Jordan's concentration camps. This slaughter and oppression had NOTHING to do with Israel. The British use their press to censor the truth.

We want Hillary and Bill to disgorge every penny they've ever received from the UAE, Qatar, Dubai, and the Saudis. This money belongs to the American People — our fighting forces died protecting the Saudis and their families deserve all the money.

Viva Israel from the Secular Christians of the West.

Contact Molly at pelago2000@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Saul Goldman, May 29, 2009.

The link below describes the work of an organization called Brit Zedek. The Hebrew words mean a just covenant. Actually, some of the people who signed this petition are jewish scholars and intellectuals. Yet, this organization of rabbis and Jewish leaders supports a two state solution which is actually a euphemism for "final solution".

Unfortunately, our rabbis and intellectuals were the most vocal in encouraging Jews to deny reality. They were the "cheerleaders" of assimilation and the kind of fuzzy thinking that left the Jews totally unprepared for the holocaust. If one looks at the map, takes into consideration demographics including one million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship as well as the hatred that Palestinians inculcate from their Hamas kindergardens on, the two state option is tantamount to national suicide.

Why do I say final solution? Because the Obama Administration has been training Palestinians under the direction of General Dayton who said in a speech, that in two years the Palestinians will be ready to kill Israelis. So, the Obama plan is almost as dangerous as Iran.

Please contact your congresspeople and urge them to stand up against what will become another round in the war against the Jews.


Contact Saul Goldman at gold7910@bellsouth.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Jake Levi, May 29, 2009.

Here is an example of the kind of 'news' that Israel does not counter. On first reading it looks innocuous. But reread it.

It does not point out that the land the communities are built on are the Heart of the Kingdom of Israel, and that one is the actual land from which Jews get their name — Judea. Nor does it point out that this same land was part of the original area ceded by the Balfour Declaration to be Jewish. Nor that it is also land taken by the Arabs in the 1948 war from Israel and taken by Israel by conquest in 1967. Much as the U.S. acquired huge blocks of its present territory including the state of Florida, and the entire Southwest.

It refers to 'Palestinians', a name taken by Arafat from a name given to the Jews by Rome, a 'people' created by Arafat, with no history, no 'Palestinian Capital ever', and no distinctive language, culture, or traditions. No currency, no operating government other then a guerilla force financed by international contributions. Which was created for the express purpose of destroying Israel and replacing it with another dysfuntional Muslim state.

And, this 'news' does not review that AP is owned by the Saudis who originated the ' 2 state solution' as a way to reduce Israel to an untenable piece of land indefensible from another war by neighboring Arab States.

This 'news item' is propaganda, disguised as news, and is being fed to the world to direct sympathy to the arabs working for the destruction of Israel and away from the true original owners of the Land of Israel, the Jewish People.

It was written by Associated Press writer, Ami Teibel.

Yaacov Levi


JERUSALEM — Israel rejected on Thursday a U.S. demand to freeze all construction in West Bank Jewish settlements to encourage peace talks, deepening a dispute with the Obama administration that has the hard-line Israeli government increasingly on edge.

The tensions flared on the same day Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was in Washington for a meeting with President Barack Obama. Abbas said the Palestinian demand for a settlement construction freeze would top his agenda.

Using unusually strong language, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that Obama wants a halt to all settlement construction, including "natural growth." Israel uses that term for new housing and other construction that it says will accommodate the growth of families living in existing settlements.

Government spokesman Mark Regev responded Thursday by saying some construction would go on.

"Normal life in those communities must be allowed to continue," he said, noting Israel has already agreed not to build new settlements and to remove some tiny, unauthorized settler outposts. Regev said the fate of the settlements would be determined in peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Former President George W. Bush gave Israel unwavering support during his eight-year term. But that appears to be changing under Obama.

The new U.S. administration has been more explicit in its criticism of Israeli settlement policy than its predecessor. Obama also pressed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in their first White House meeting last week to support creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. But so far, Netanyahu has balked at that idea, too.

The growing pressure, coupled with Obama's outreach to the Muslim world that will be underscored by a speech in Cairo next week, has many Israelis wondering where exactly they fit into the president's plans. They are particularly concerned by Washington's efforts to start a dialogue with Iran, Israel's arch-foe, after nearly three decades of diplomatic estrangement.

Clinton said Obama told Netanyahu last week at the White House that the U.S. sees stopping settlements as key to a peace deal that would see a Palestinian state created alongside Israel.

"He wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions," Clinton said. "We think it is in the best interests (of the peace process) that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly. ... And we intend to press that point."

While Israel could flout the U.S. opposition, Netanyahu is wary of a showdown with his most important ally. He has been careful to avoid direct conflict with the Americans, but members of his government have become openly critical.

Israel views its close relationship with the U.S. as fundamental to its security and foreign policy. If Israel refused to halt settlement construction, the U.S. could reduce economic or military aid, curtail arms sales, or scale back the close strategic cooperation the two countries currently have, including the sharing of information and joint projects, such as anti-missile systems.

During a Cabinet debate on settlement outposts this week, Interior Minister Eli Yishai declared that Israel does not have to "kowtow to every American dictate."

"The American administration regrettably ... is showing the Arab and Muslim world that it is distancing itself from Israel and shifting toward them," Cabinet Minister Benny Begin lamented during a separate parliamentary debate. "The message is clear. The will is clear."

The U.S. and much of the world consider the settlements an obstacle to peace because they are built on captured land the Palestinians claim for a future state. But successive U.S. administrations have done little to halt settlement activity.

Now more than 120 settlements dot the West Bank, and Palestinian officials say their growth makes it increasingly impossible to realize their dream of independence. More than 280,000 Israelis live in the settlements, in addition to more than 2 million Palestinians in the West Bank. An additional 180,000 Israelis live in east Jerusalem, where the Palestinians hope to establish their capital.

With the U.S. turning up the pressure to freeze settlements, Israeli officials proposed a compromise earlier this week. In exchange for removing some 22 outposts, they would ask the U.S. to permit new construction in existing settlements. Clinton's remarks followed that proposal.

Along with the calls to halt settlements, Obama's active courting of Iran and pressure on Israel to make progress with the Palestinians have only compounded Israeli fears.

Israelis will be anxiously watching Obama's June 4 speech in Cairo, where he will deliver a message to the Muslim world to try to repair relations that frayed badly under the Bush administration.

Obama will also visit Saudi Arabia before he goes to Egypt. But he has no plans to stop in Israel, an hour's flight from Egypt, during his swing through the region.

The U.S. and many other Western countries have been dealing with Abbas, who leads the Palestinian Authority from the West Bank, while mostly shunning the militant Islamic Hamas group that controls the Gaza Strip.

Hamas took over Gaza nearly two years ago after routing Abbas' forces in bloody street battles. Repeated attempts to reconcile between the two bitter rivals have failed to yield any results.

A senior Hamas militant was killed Thursday by Israeli forces in the West Bank city of Hebron after a 14-year manhunt.

The Israeli military said they surrounded Abed Majid Daodin's house and called on him to surrender, but he instead opened fire, and they shot and killed him.

The military said he had recruited and dispatched suicide bombers, including two who killed 10 Israelis and wounded more than 100 in 1995.

Hamas vowed to avenge the militant's death. "Our fighters in the West Bank have full freedom to strike any target," the group said.

Contact Jake Levi at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, May 29, 2009.

Posted by Freedom Fighter on the Joshua Pundit website.


Mahmoud Abbas, the capo del tutti of Fatah is scheduled to be in DC today, meeting with President Obama on Middle East peace and — oh yes — that proposed $900 million aid package to the Palestinians pledged by the Obama Administration on our behalf that the Senate is now mulling over.

This is over and above the money they're already getting from us via UNRWA, USAid and the World Bank.

Aside from the dubious wisdom involved in shelling out well over a billion dollars in taxpayer funds to Abbas who is not even the legal president of the Palestinian Authority any longer, there's the slight problem that funding the Palestinian Authority openly flouts existing US law.

American law expressly prohibits funding of Palestinian buildings and projects that use any portion of their budgets to aid, promote, glorify or honor terrorists or terrorism.

That's been an entrenched principle since Oslo. Yet Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have done exactly that with impunity for years, even under 'moderate' Mahmoud Abbas.

Samir Kuntar, the Lebanese child killer who was recently freed in a swap for the mutilated and tortured bodies of two Israelis kidnapped by Hezbollah was named an 'honorary Palestinian citizen' a mere two years ago while Abbas was in power. He was publicly celebrated by Mahmoud Abbas, Israel's supposed peace partner, who referred to Kuntar as `heroic' and to his having won 'a big struggle.' The Palestinian media ran numerous programs touting him as a hero and role model.

Another Palestinian hero who's been honored as a role model and has had numerous US funded projects named after her is Dalal Mughrabi,who's remains were also part of the same swap that freed Kuntar.

She was the leader of what became known in Israel as the Coastal Massacre. On March 11, 1978, Mughrabi led a band of eleven terrorists who murdered several people in cold blood, including an American photographer, Gail Rubin. They then hijacked a bus filled with families going on an outing.

When the IDF unit managed to stop the bus, Mughrabi and her gang began shooting the helpless men, women and children at point-blank range and then firebombed the bus itself, turning it into a death trap. At least 35 were killed, including 13 children and a number of Americans.

In 2002, Fatah began building a girls' school in Hebron named after Mughrabi, funded by US money. When this came to light, the Palestinian Authority promised to change the name, but as soon as the school was completed, the name change was rescinded and the school is still named after Mughrabi as I write this.

She's also had a few streets and a number of other government institutions like summer camps named in her honor, and there have been a number of books, television and radio programs in the PA controlled media about her 'heroic martyrdom.' She's regarded by Palestinian Arabs as a role model.

Back in 2004, the US spent $400,000 of your tax money through USAid to construct the Salakh Khalaf soccer field.

Interesting fellow, Khalaf. He headed the Black September group that murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, and later tortured to death two American diplomats in the Sudan in 1973 on Arafat's orders, Cleo Allen Noel and George Curtis Moore.

Once that got out USAID publicly acknowledged the error and claimed they would demand that the name be changed. It never was.

Under existing US law and numerous precedents, the Palestinian Authority should have had its US funding yanked a long time ago.

But wait, there's more.

On top of all this, the US is in the middle of a $350 million commitment to train, arm and fund a Fatah army. This effort is being directed by US general Keith Dayton, who's been working on this for two years. Apparently the last attempt which did so well in Gaza and resulted in Hamas obtaining millions of dollars in gently used ('only dropped once') American military equipment that it encouraged even more of an investment.

Except this time, according to General Dayton the probable target isn't Hamas, but Israel.

Dayton, in a talk at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy talked about the three battalions of Fatah soldiers he's already trained and the plans for eight more.

And according to Dayton, unless the Israelis decide to commit national suicide by giving in to all of the Palestinian's demands, they could rebel...or in other words, they'll simply turn their weapons on Israel, something Abbas has eluded to a number of times .That's exactly what Abbas' old boss Yasir Arafat did before.

In other words, we're paying through the nose to build an army that could menace one of our allies in the hopes of creating a country...and one that, given the realities, will probably be ruled by Hamas as an Iranian proxy.

It's enough to make me want to vomit in disgust, frankly.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 28, 2009.


An Islamist party won an election in the Negev town of Rahat. Mayor Faiz Abu Sahiban summarily fired the two Jewish municipal employees, without cause, because of their religion, he explained. Rahat is a Bedouin community

So far, no reaction from Israeli human rights organizations, which complain about veterans benefits, for primarily helping Jews. That complaint is unjustified, because Arabs can become veterans (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/9).

Other discrimination against Jews in Israel:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d21-More-Israeli-discrimination-against-Jews


In the 1970s, a new generation of filmmakers arose in Israel. Dr. Ilan Avishur of Tel Aviv University made of study of Israeli filmmaking in recent decades.

He study found that the new generation produced mostly anti-Zionist propaganda, including unpopular films. They enjoyed government subsidy for it.

The films mischaracterize Arab terrorists as victims and Israelis as Nazi-like bullies. In this historical revisionism, films lie about the Six-Day War. "On a Clear Day You Can See Damascus" recasts as a hero the Israeli traitor who spied on Israel and who organized a terrorist cell (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/9).

So much lying indicates not a justifiable cause but a psychosis needing treatment.

For another example of Israeli leftist bias against Zionism:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d20-Israel-Prize-awarded-to-leftist


A poll found that 40% of Israeli Arabs denied the occurrence of the Holocaust. The pollster, a sociologist specializing in Arab-Israel relations, explains that the Arabs believe that acknowledging the Holocaust bolster's Israel's cause, so they deny it (NY Times, 5/19, A12). He attributed polled Arab opinions over the years, even on factual matters, to the effect they think their statements would have on their cause
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/9).

I often contradict popular acceptance of Arab statements as genuine, based on the same understanding of Arab culture as that sociologist has. This is confirmation of my admonition not to take Arab statements at face value, and not to accept their version of events, because they say what they think makes propaganda. There is evidence, too, that they believe their own false propaganda. That is why I do not accept as legitimate the Palestinian Arabs' sudden self-designation of being a separate nationality, when I know that they fabricated that notion for propaganda several decades ago. For more on this:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d19-Memories-of-ArabIsrael-war


Add up the Administration's acts of diplomacy. First, "National Security Adviser James Jones told a European foreign minister that the US is planning to build an anti-Israel coalition with the Arabs and Europe to compel Israel to surrender Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to the..." Palestinian Authority (P.A.).

Pres. Obama HAD V.P. Biden tell AIPAC, that Israel should cede the territory.

Quartet envoy Tony Blair said the highest U.S. level is polishing the Saudi plan with Arab but not Israeli participation. Israel has exposed that plan as a means of destroying Israel. Its current draft doesn't promise peace but "natural relations." Sounds nice; means nothing. [That indicates subterfuge.]

When Israeli Pres. Peres went to visit Obama, to thaw relations, Obama froze out the media, turning the trip into a non-event.

In demanding that Israel acquiesce to the Saudi plan, with modifications that the Arabs have been rejecting, the US implies Israeli responsibility for Arab wars of aggression. The Administration also is making Israel a scapegoat for Iran's nuclear program. How? Obama's chief of staff advised AIPAC that Israel's refusal to give up territory keeps the Arabs from supporting steps to curb Iran's nuclear development. False advice! The Arabs acknowledge that Iran and territory are separate issues.

Now the Administration is blaming Israel on the pretext that if Israel gave up its nuclear weapons, Iran wouldn't develop its own, anyway. This breached a U.S.-Israel understanding that the U.S. would not bring up Israel's nuclear capability. This new U.S. rationalization gives Iran an excuse for its program.

Obama's policy is not realistic but stubbornly ideological. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it would become emboldened to promote more war. Although Hamas still is firing rockets into Israel, the U.S. demands that Israel cede land to a coming joint Hamas-Fatah regime, and the U.S. continues subsidizing the P.A., which refuses to accept the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty anywhere.

Against stubborn ideology, Netanyahu will present facts and logic to Obama, in vain. Now would Israel gain anything by accommodating the hostile Administration. Israel cannot count on the U.S.; it must formulate policy independently. It may as well destroy Iran's nuclear plants (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/9, from Caroline Glick) and gain security.

The Arabs want that raid. The U.S. or Israel should carry it out. The Obama administration's actions are unrealistic, counter-productive, and unethical. Obama was supposed to be a reformer.

For more on Obama policy on Israel:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d19-Obama--on-Iran-and-Israel


You may recall that the Master Plan envisions archeological development, parks, housing, etc.. It all hangs together. [I studied city planning.]

The Israeli Left opposes the Plan. It complains that implementation means demolishing some illegal Arab houses. [Why does the Left, which demands law enforcement against Jews, oppose law enforcement against Arabs?]

The plan would connect Jerusalem with some Jewish-owned suburbs, strengthening Israel's claim to the area. Leftists argue that that this would change the status of the area. This riles them, because they are under the illusion that if Israel withdrew from those areas, the Arabs would make peace. If the Arabs would make peace, then why should they object to good city planning in areas they may take over, under a peace agreement?

[The Left's arguments are mostly false claims and pejorative. Housing does not change the "status" of an area. They are using a laymen's usage of "status," whereas the Oslo injunction against unilaterally changing the "status" of contested areas has a different, legal meaning. The legal meaning is changing the legal status from contested to under new jurisdiction. The Palestinian Authority tries to do that by violating another Oslo provision forbidding it from setting up government agencies in Jerusalem, as if assuming jurisdiction there.]

[If building Jews' houses changes the status, then so does building Arabs' houses, but the Left doesn't object to that. What it really objects to is making clear the Jewish people's historical ties to Jerusalem and making it feasible for the Jews to keep the suburbs.]

The Left paints the plan as sinister, as a secret plan, whose goal is to retain the historical Jerusalem area. It isn't secret, the Mayor revealed it. He developed the whole plan, first, to avoid premature controversy over a half-baked plan.

"Attorney Danny Seidemann of Ir Amim says that if the historic basin surrounding the Old City is transformed in the spirit of extreme rightist organizations, 'there is a dangerous interface between the program and settler projects whose goal is the prevention of a future political solution in the heart of the conflict.'"

All that objection because of the Left's false illusion that Abbas intends peaceful coexistence — as Abbas says, the Arabs don't recognize any Jewish right to sovereignty, even over Tel Aviv (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/9).

The pejorative "extreme rightist" is name-calling. The lament that the Jews are trying to keep their historical area sounds more like self-hating antisemitism. Who should keep the Jews' historical area, the Arabs?

For an outline of the plan:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d20-Jerusalems-new-master-plan

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, May 28, 2009.

What settlement freeze commitment?

Everyone assumes that Israel is committed to freezing settlement activity without preconditions. Not so. Here's why. The Roadmap demanded that Israel "immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001″ and provided that "Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)".

The Mitchell Report was prepared in response to the terror unleashed by Arafat, after he turned down Barak's genererous offer at Camp David. It's goal was to make recommendations to end the violence.

It is important to understand the context and the wording of the Mitchell Report because the settlement freeze demanded by the Roadmap had to be consistent with it.


The GOI and the PA must act swiftly and decisively to halt the violence. Their immediate objectives then should be to rebuild confidence and resume negotiations.


* The GOI and the PA should reaffirm their commitment to existing agreements and undertakings and should immediately implement an unconditional cessation of violence.

* The GOI and PA should immediately resume security cooperation.

Effective bilateral cooperation aimed at preventing violence will encourage the resumption of negotiations... We believe that the security cooperation cannot long be sustained if meaningful negotiations are unreasonably deferred, if security measures "on the ground" are seen as hostile, or if steps are taken that are perceived as provocative or as prejudicing the outcome of negotiations.

By calling for negotiations, it imposed on Israel the duty to make an even better offer. "Meaningful negotiations"? Wasn't that what just took place, to no avail?


* The PA and GOI should work together to establish a meaningful "cooling off period" and implement additional confidence building measures.

* The PA and GOI should resume their efforts to identify, condemn and discourage incitement in all its forms.

* The PA should make clear through concrete action to Palestinians and Israelis alike that terrorism is reprehensible and unacceptable, and that the PA will make a 100 percent effort to prevent terrorist operations and to punish perpetrators. This effort should include immediate steps to apprehend and incarcerate terrorists operating within the PA's jurisdiction.

If you read this carefully you will note that there are stages set out in this order

1. End the violence
2. Have a "cooling off" period
3. Confidence building measures.

Furthermore there is an acceptance that ending the violence and incitement is out of the questions and so only "100% efforts", are demanded.

The confidence building measures required of Israel, included

* The GOI should freeze all settlement activity, including the "natural growth" of existing settlements. The kind of security cooperation desired by the GOI cannot for long co-exist with settlement activity.

* The GOI should give careful consideration to whether settlements which are focal points for substantial friction are valuable bargaining chips for future negotiations or provocations likely to preclude the onset of productive talks.

Clearly this Report accepted the notion that settlement growth is the cause of the violence. But as we know, the goal of the violence (Arab terrorism) is to destroy Israel rather than to only end the settlement activity. This issue was not addressed.

* The GOI may wish to make it clear to the PA that a future peace would pose no threat to the territorial contiguity of a Palestinian State to be established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

* The IDF should consider withdrawing to positions held before September 28, 2000 which will reduce the number of friction points and the potential for violent confrontations.

The Report advances the Palestinian desire to be contiguous, as legitimate. Why so? If they want to be contiguous let them offer something in return. This is a matter for negotiations, not fiat.


* We reiterate our belief that a 100 percent effort to stop the violence, an immediate resumption of security cooperation and an exchange of confidence building measures are all important for the resumption of negotiations. Yet none of these steps will long be sustained absent a return to serious negotiations.

It is not within our mandate to prescribe the venue, the basis or the agenda of negotiations. However, in order to provide an effective political context for practical cooperation between the parties, negotiations must not be unreasonably deferred and they must, in our view, manifest a spirit of compromise, reconciliation and partnership, notwithstanding the events of the past seven months.

Needless to say, the Arabs have never shown "a spirit of compromise, reconciliation and partnership". In the absence of same, the Mitchell Report is groundless.

Thus the Mitchell Reports simply puts forward recommendations, predicated on "a spirit of compromise", to be followed in stages. A freeze of settlement activity is only a recommendated measure and not an order and it is accompanied by other recommendations which have yet to be fulfiulled. Since the Arabs did not end the violence and incitement, there is no imperative for Israel to freeze settlement activity. Yet the US would like to consider it an imperative unconnected to performance by the Palestinians.

It certainly rewards Arafat for his violence and intransigence by giving him what he could not get in negotiations. In essence, the report demands that Israel give more.

So what must the settlement freeze include to be consistent with the Mitchel Report?

Until now, Israel has refrained from dismantling the unlawful outposts in any serious way as required by the Roadmap. But this week Barak, with the support of Netanyahu, demolished three such outposts.

One wonders if this is being done to show a willingness to honour commitments or whether Israel received a quid pro quo for finally doing what they have been promising to do.

Time will tell whether Israel will follow through on this. I believe that she will, in exchange for permission, tacit or otherwise, to continue building elsewhere. Israel will never stop building in the settlement blocks nor should she.

After Obama met with Netanyahu in the White House recently he said

Now, Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well, and I shared with the Prime Minister the fact that under the roadmap and under Annapolis that there's a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements. Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.

Long before the Mitchell Report, the US has been against settlements calling them "illegal" or just "obstacles to peace". The Mitchell Report recommended a freeze of settlement activity as part of a process and not as an absolute.

President Obama has made it an absolute.

But, as the Report sets out, the freeze on settlement activity is only a recommended "confidence building measure" to be preformed as the Arabs preform what is recommended of them

Beyond that, the the Bush letter in "04 in advance of disengagement provided, inter alia,

In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

Israel interprets this as a license to continue building in such population centers and these include Ariel and Maaleh Adumin.

Pres Obama, by demanding a stop to settlement construction, is contravening both of these documents in the name of honouring them.

Totally aside from the legalities, the peace process, of which the recommended freeze is a part, is intended to lead to a peace agreement. But what if such an agreement is not obtainable because the Arabs won't compromise or if the freeze, if acted upon, will ensure that an agreement won't be achieved because the Palestinians would have no need to compromise. In both cases, demanding a freeze is counterproductive.

The only way to put pressure on the Palestinians to compromise is to continue building in the settlements. The sooner the Palestinians make a deal the sooner the construction will stop.

In fact a deal could be done this year if they compromised so why waste time and energy on fighting over the freeze? The answer is obvious. The Arabs con't intend to compromise but want Israel to stop building, period. According to the roadmap, the settlement freeze was not an end in itself as the Arabs demand but a step to an agreement based on compromise and good will.

Even if the Palestinians totally ended incitement and violence, the settlement construction should continue and not just in the major settlement blocks. This alone will ensure that the Palestinians compromise to acheive their state or that the two-state solution will be abandonned for something more attainable but excluding a bi-national state.

Furthermore, if these arguments aren't enough, the Palestinians, including the Gazans, are divided but must be viewed in totality to judge whether they are living up to the confidence building measures demanded of them.

Under the title, Obama-Netanyahu meeting went better than you think, Haaretz reported on what Lieberman said.

"On the Palestinian issue, there is agreement as to the final destination," Lieberman said. "Everyone wants to see security, economic prosperity, and stability. Perhaps there is a tactical disagreement as to what is the best way to attain these goals. So there is much more in common and much more positive points. The meeting was much more positive than what one is led to believe."

Lieberman denied the West Bank settlements obstruct a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Zalman Shoval believes US-Israel ties will stay strong.

Afterall, Israel and the US have always disagreed on the settlement issue and they will continue to disagree.

Ted Belman
054 441 3252

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvu Ben Gedalyahu, May 28, 2009.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came out swinging at Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Wednesday night and specifically rejected his policy for allowing building for "natural growth" in Judea and Samaria.

Her statement came on the eve of Thursday's visit of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to the White House, which two weeks ago told Israel to stop all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria.

"The president was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here. He wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions," Secretary Clinton said at a news conference with visiting Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit. She also dined with Abbas Wednesday night.

Mark Regev, spokesman for the Netanyahu government, immediately responded and said that life will continue as usual for residents in towns and cities in Judea and Samaria. He said that the future of the areas will be settled in negotiations. The PA, with support from the Obama government, has implicitly said that negotiation are only possible once its demands are met.

After returning from Washington, Netanyahu took steps to please the American government and announced that his administration will remove 26 hilltop communities and outposts. They are termed illegal because they were established after the Sharon government agreed to a U.S. demand not to establish more communities in Judea and Samaria.

However, Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear he would not capitulate to all of the PA demands that are backed by the Obama government. Both he and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have said they cannot "tell families not to have babies" in Judea and Samaria, where growth outstrips the population increase in the rest of the country.

The Obama administration has not declared whether its demand includes Jerusalem neighborhoods over which the PA also wants sovereignty for its proposed new Arab country, which would give it control of all of the land restored to Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last year reversed American policy and defined as a "settlement" the neighborhood of Har Homa, which has the same legal status as French Hill, Talpiot, Ramot and Gilo. All of the neighborhoods were annexed to Jerusalem nearly 30 years ago but are not recognized by the international community as part of the capital.

The annexation prompted the removal of all embassies that were located in Jerusalem, leaving consulates in the city. The article below was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared in Arutz-7 (IsraelNN.com)

To Go To Top

Posted by Herb Keinon, May 28, 2009.

"A 'settlement freeze' would not help Palestinians face today's problems or prepare for tomorrow's challenges," Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser under former US president George Bush, wrote in April in The Washington Post.

"The demand for a freeze would have only one quick effect: to create immediate tension between the United States and Israel's new government," he wrote. "That may be precisely why some propose it, but it is also why the Obama administration should reject it."

Abrams proved prophetic: the issue has indeed created immediate tension with the US, not over illegal outposts — Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has made it clear he will remove them — but over "natural growth" in the settlements.

The question is why the US is looking for this fight, and why Obama has not heeded Abrams's advice and rejected those pushing him in a confrontation over the matter.

Truth be told, comments by Obama himself on the subject have not pointed to a looming battle. After his meeting with Netanyahu in the White House last week, Obama spoke — much as Bush spoke before him — in rather general terms about a need for Israel to stop settlement construction.

"There is a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements, that settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward," he said, using language heard often in the past.

The indication that a fight was brewing came when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an Al-Jazeera interview — an interview whose transcript was circulated last Wednesday by the State Department — that a freeze is just that: a complete and total freeze, even for "natural growth."

That position, as was made abundantly clear at Sunday's cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, is not acceptable to the current Netanyahu government. Even Defense Minister Ehud Barak, representing the left flank of the government, said it was illogical to accept a principle whereby a family could not add on to their 45-meter house to accommodate more children, or whereby veterans of IDF units couldn't return — with their wives — to the settlements of their birth to live near their parents.

So a clash is in the making, though coming to some kind of agreement on this issue was one of the main objectives that Intelligence Services Minister Dan Meridor, National Security Advisor Uzi Arad and Yitzhak Molcho, Netanyahu's envoy on the Palestinian issue, took with them to London this week for their meeting with US Middle East envoy George Mitchell.

Israel's position, or its hope, is that this issue can be finessed, just as it was finessed under the previous government. Or, as Netanyahu told a visiting Congressional delegation on Wednesday, there is a need to find a way with the US administration to enable "normal life" in the settlements to continue. If Obama says no settlements, but doesn't mention natural growth, leaving Clinton to do that, does that mean there is wiggle room? Nobody knows yet.

Not too long ago, Clinton's predecessor Condoleezza Rice caused consternation in Jerusalem when she began referring to Israeli neighborhoods in east Jerusalem as settlements.

But then Jerusalem was able to say, "Hey, that's only Rice. Bush doesn't feel that way." The problem is that no one quite knows the dynamics yet on these issues inside the Obama administration.

Israeli officials are confident — perhaps overly confident — that if they "line up" with the US administration on the "right side of the fence" on most settlement issues, they could find a formula to work regarding natural growth.

This means that if, as the Olmert government declared, the Netanyahu government says it will uproot illegal outposts, not set up new settlements, not give incentives to move to the settlements, and not expropriate any additional Palestinian lands, then the conventional wisdom in the current government is that the US would permit — as it has in the past — natural growth construction as long as it does not go beyond the existing construction lines.

But what if Obama, as some maintain, is actually looking for a public fight with Israel on this issue in order to win credit with the Arab world, and legitimacy among the Europeans as a leader who is willing to take Israel on when necessary?

That could be a tricky tactic, because if the US president picks a fight with Israel over the natural growth issue at a time when Israel has declared it won't build new settlements, expropriate land or give incentives to move there, then it could be perceived among some Obama supporters in Congress as being unfairly tough on Israel, especially since various verbal understandings were made over the years that Israel interpreted as a green light for natural growth.

Indeed, what is lacking is clarity, not about where Israel stands on the issue at this point, but where Obama stands, and how far he will push. Clinton's position is clear — but is she also speaking for the president?

As Abrams wrote in April, "for the past five years, Israel's government has largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted: that there would be no new settlements, no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements and no new construction except in already built-up areas. The clear purpose of the guidelines? To allow for settlement growth in ways that minimized the impact on Palestinians."

The new Netanyahu government has made clear it will abide by those guidelines, and even go further, by taking down illegal outposts. What remains to be seen, what has to be clarified, is whether the Obama administration feels bound by these same guidelines.

If it doesn't, then a clash over the issue is all but inevitable.

EDITOR'S NOTE: One reader reminded us that the Arabs are building all over the place, mostly illegally. How does USA expect to be perceived as the honest broker? Ignoring Arab building and suppressing Jewish building obviously says that USA has sided with the Arabs. The comment was

94. Media is silent on new Arab settlements in West Bank

There are 261 of them that have been built since 1950. They fill the with Egyptians, Jordanians and Lebanese and ipso facto they are "Palestinians". Why not have a total freeze of both Arab and Israeli settlements, including natural expansion? Both or none.
Wallace Brand — USA (05/29/2009 05:37)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jake Levi, May 28, 2009.

Where are the calls of support when the Rabbis show long-needed leadership? Especially from the Knesset? Barak is running amuck, he must be stopped, and stopped now. This is a time for all of the National Camp to support Israel. This is a time when the Nationalist Camp must stand up, firm and strong and say: Never Again ! The article below was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared in Arutz-7 (IsraelNN.com)


Leading national religious rabbis called on soldiers Wednesday night to refuse orders that involve them in the destruction of Jewish hilltop communities and the expulsion of those living there.

Their call sparked a protest in the mass media and among several political leaders, similar to the storm that raged over the same issue during the period of the expulsions from Gaza and northern Samaria in 2005 and in Amona two years ago.

Kiryat Arab-Hevron Chief Rabbi Dov Lior and Beit El Chief Rabbi Zalman Melamed were among those who wrote a statement that said "the holy Torah prohibits taking part in any act of uprooting Jews from any part of "our sacred land."

In radio interviews Thursday morning, Ichud Leumi (National Union) Knesset Member Michael Ben-Ari and officials of the Council of Rabbis for communities in Judea and Samaria (Yesha) explained that Israel was established because of the Torah and therefore one cannot carry out policies that are against it.

The rabbis conferred at the small community of Givat Asaf, one of the 26 sites that Defense Minister Ehud Barak has vowed to destroy, by force if necessary.

An official for the Council of Yesha Rabbis added, "The government is ruled by non-Jews like [President Barack] Obama and that is our weakness. It is not Jewish sovereignty. They are throwing sand in our eyes with their declarations."

Most of the outposts are hilltop sites, some of which are full-fledged communities comprised of dozens of families. The government already has prepared orders telling residents to leave voluntarily or face police and soldiers, similar to the force used last week at the Maoz Esther outpost in Samaria.

The same calls for refusing to carry out what the rabbis define as illegal orders resulted in a fierce debate in 2005 as the government prepared tens of thousands of security forces to expel nearly 10,000 Jews from two dozen communities in the Gaza region and part of northern Samaria.

The issue has become increasingly significant because a growing number of combat officers come from national religious institutions.

Several national religious leaders, such as Moshe Hagar, who heads the group of two dozen pre-army Torah academies (Mechina), previously opposed disobeying orders. However, he said in an interview Thursday morning that "the soldiers no longer need to ask rabbis concerning expulsions because they know what to do." Others have stated that soldiers must not refuse orders but should simply tell their commanding officers they do not feel well and cannot function properly.

As in the past, the Yesha rabbis' advice was met with demands that they be arrested for incitement. MK Ofer Pines-Paz said, "The rabbis' call to refuse military orders undermines Israeli democracy. This is dangerous incitement that is liable to break up the IDF."

Contact Jake Levi at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoav Sorek, May 28, 2009.

This is Newsletter No. 15 — May 28, 2009.


Dear friends,

Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to Washington has caused resurgence of public debate regarding alternatives to the two-state solution, an idea that America has been pushing for the past few years. Opposition to the two-state solution comes not only from the right wing in Israel, but is gradually becoming the quiet acquiescence of the general public. As time goes on, calls against the two-state solution are becoming more and more dominant.

Yuval Diskin, head of the GSS, stated that there is no future in negotiations with the Palestinians. Giora Eiland, former national security advisor, continues to reiterate that Hamas' dominance of the Palestinian street makes negotiations with the Palestinians irrelevant and unproductive. Moreover, Eiland said that the maximum amount of territory that Israel can relinquish to the Palestinians will not be nearly sufficient to procure support for such a plan amongst the Palestinian people. Last week the Jerusalem Post featured an article by Uri Bar Zohar, a historian and former Labor MK, which asserted that the Jordanian option should be resurrected as the Palestinian option cannot bring peace.

Even prior to the Prime Minister's visit to Washington, opposition to the two-state solution was already being voiced. MK Danny Danon (Likud) convened those close to the Prime Minister to reaffirm the party's rejection of the two-state solution. These feelings were expressed by Limor Livnat, who said that the negotiations with the Palestinians so far "have not brought any positive results". After Netanyahu's return from the meeting wuth Obama, MK Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) has organized a very successful conference in the Knesset, to discuss alternative policies to the two-state solution. The Israeli Initiative was one of the alternatives, and we look forward for the next steps of this public debate.

In retrospect, there is no doubt that these statements had a strong influence in helping the Prime Minister withstand the American pressure of agreeing to a two-state solution.

ONLY A FEW DAYS AGO WE CELEBRATED THE FORTY-SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF JERUSALEM'S UNIFICATION, an achievement of the six day war. That war made clear that Israel's existence is no longer in question, left Israel defendable borders, and gave Israel the ability to deter her enemies.

Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, is beautiful as always, and a place where it is possible to walk securely in all parts of the city. However, the joy is not complete. While forty years have passed since the six day war and more than sixty years since Israel's establishment, Israel's legitimacy to exist is still being challenged.

There are various explanations for this, some deeply entrenched in psychological stereotypes of the west, which see the Jews as a persecuted and exiled nation, but have difficulty seeing them as a sovereign nation. However, these thought patterns in the west need to be legitimized by some basis in reality. This basis is provided by the Palestinian refugees.

With the establishment of Israel's statehood came the refugee problem. These refugees continue to hinder Israel's legitimacy in the eyes of the world. The time has come for our Government to cease being afraid to deal with the refugee problem and initiate a change in the international community on this issue.

The current path in the Middle East peace process is heading in a direction which will not provide practical solutions. There is one change that can be effected which can potentially redirect the peace process and open new windows of opportunity. This change is the dismantling of the refugee camps and the rehabilitation of the refugees. Rehabilitating, or resettling those who choose such, is the key to shifting the course of events. It is urgent that this process begin, even if only a small number of refugees are aided. Breaking the stagnant situation will shift the nature of 'the Palestinian problem' in the eyes of the public from a political issue to a humanitarian one.

May we all enjoy a Happy Shavuot,

Yoav Sorek
Director, the Israeli Initiative

To Go To Top

Posted by Lowell Gallin, May 27, 2009.

On Monday, May 4, 2009, Mishkenot Sha'ananim and the Interreligious Coordinating Council in Israel hosted a briefing at Mishkenot Sha'anaim in Yemin Moshe, Jerusalem, for journalists with His Excellency, Monsignor Antonio Franco, Apostolic Nuncio to Israel, one week before the visit to Israel of Pope Benedikt XVI.

Lowell Gallin asked Monsignor Franco the following question:

"Your Excellency, My question concerns two dates in church history:

Today, May 4, 2009; and March 23, 1993, seventy six years ago.

Please, would you tell us why, on March 23, 1933, was the German Catholic Center Party, under the leadership of Monsignor Kass, ordered by the Vatican to cast the swing vote giving the Nazis the two thirds majority they needed in the Reichstag to pass Hitler's 'Enabling Act', destroying German parliamentary democracy and inaugurating the new Nazi dictatorship?

And would you please tell us why; until today, May 4, 2009, has the Vatican never excommunicated a single Nazi war criminal born Catholic, including Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler; church leaders who collaborated with the Nazis, such as Monsignor Tiso, ruler of the Nazi puppet state of Slovakia; and church leaders, such as Tirolean Bishop Aloys Hudel and Croatian priest Father Krunoslav Draganovic, who participated with many others in running the Berlin-Rome-Buenos Aires Ratlines, which smuggled hundred if not thousands of Nazi war criminals, and money and property they stole, out of Europe to Argentina and other havens of refuge at the end of World War Two?"

Chag Sameach and Shabbat Shalom from Yerushalayim,

Mr. Lowell Gallin
Founder and President
Root & Branch Association, Ltd.

The Root & Branch Association, Ltd. (www.rb.org.il), "an all-volunteer, non-member organization founded by Torah-observant Jews, promotes cooperation between the State of Israel and other nations, and between B'nai Israel (Children of Israel) and B'nai Noach (Children of Noah) in Israel and abroad, to build a better world based on the universal Noahide Covenant and Laws as commanded by the G-d of Israel in the Bible and Jewish tradition."

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 27, 2009.

And the first order of business is Shavuot, which begins tomorrow night. This holiday, the culmination of our counting of the Omer for seven weeks, marks Matan Torah — our receiving of the Torah. The counting from Pesach until now — which has significance in many ways — tells us that there is a spiritual progression from the Exodus to Sinai.

We traditionally celebrate this Festival by studying through the night.

It is unlikely that there will be another posting after this one until after Shabbat.

Chag Shavuot Sameach!


Well, the delegation headed by Minister of Intelligence Dan Meridor has gone to London to discuss matters with US officials there, prior to Barak's visit in Washington, and it's being reported that both Iran and settlements are on the agenda.

As to Iran, it truly is wait and see how Obama will respond to what Barak brings him.

But we cannot escape the link with the enormously threatening and worrisome way in which North Korea is currently behaving. US response will be watched carefully by the world, and one must hope (and pray!) that the American president will be jarred into waking up before it is too late.

Guess what? Being nice guys with a renegade regime simply does not work. Not in North Korea and not in Iran. What is more, it's a lot easier (safer for the world) to deal with stopping such a regime from going nuclear than to confront one that already is nuclear.

Barack Hussein Obama — do you get the picture yet?


Here in Israel there is concern about nuclear proliferation and nuclear material getting into the hands of ME terrorists. But there is also the hope that alarm over Korea internationally may spur a stronger stance with regard to Iran. There is, for example, Russia, which has cut Iran a great deal of slack, but is now alarmed about North Korea.


As to settlements: Two other illegal — or more properly, unauthorized — outposts outside of Kiryat Arba were taken down last night. One is at the Federman farm, which was demolished last year. There had been some activity reported regarding re-establishment of the property, but when police went there last night all they actually found was a tent filled with equipment. The other is at Hill 18, otherwise called Givat Avichai, which had been founded by yeshiva students from Kiryat Arba. There authorities found two shacks and some electrical equipment. The handful of yeshiva students present put up no resistance.

On the one hand, it seems altogether ludicrous, that authorities are taking the time to dismantle tents and shacks. But there is another way of looking at this. While they may end up doing bigger things, we must remember that as of now it's been mostly a show. Wow! Two unauthorized outposts taken down. They're tough. You think Barak will report to Obama on what he's done so far?


A reader (thanks, Don S.) has asked me to elaborate on the different statuses that outposts or settlements can have. And I'd like to devote space to that here, as this is an important issue.

The whole business of legal vs. illegal settlements is both complicated and political. Most settlements have had some interaction with some government departments or agencies. They've hooked up water lines, or electric lines, or paved a road, or whatever. There is sanction somewhere along the way. And sometimes that sanction is considerable. But if final papers are not in place, then the settlement can be called "illegal" or "unauthorized."

The region comprised of Judea and Samaria is not governed by Israeli civil law — civil law was never extended to this area as it was to the Golan and to eastern Jerusalem. (Note: this is not a case of annexing it, but extending the law of Israel to apply.) The region is administered separately under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense, and it is the office of the Defense Minister that must sign off on a settlement. Thus Barak's involvement here.

There are instances in which "illegal" settlements have been later declared legal, and there is hope that this might happen now in a handful of instances at least. That can particularly be the case when so-called outposts are really outlying neighborhoods of recognized settlements.

But it can happen in other instances as well. And actually it was explained to me by a lawyer some time ago that many settlements considered authorized today moved through a process this way.


There are some charges being made — by far left groups such as Peace Now and Yesh G'vul — that some of the settlements are on private Palestinian land. While these charges are not necessarily accurate, where this might be a problem, shifting of the settlement to other land, rather than demolishing it, is a possible resolution.


Several political issues complicate this whole matter. The Obama administration is saying that we have certain obligations with regard to settlements stemming from the Road Map for Peace. Introduced by the US, with Quartet sponsorship, in the spring of 2003, it presented a phased plan, with a timeline, for achieving a two-state solution.

You can see the full text here;

In the proposed first phase, it says the Government of Israel must "immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001" and "freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)."

We may not like it. We may hate it. But it says it.


But — wait! — it's not nearly as simple as Obama would have it.

First there is the question of whether it still applies, as it was envisioned as resulting in a Palestinian state by 2005. Has a post-2005 situation superseded this document?

Unfortunately, our new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has made it more difficult to make this case, as he declared early on that we should scrap Annapolis and go back to the Road Map. It was clear why he did this: Annapolis was trying to jump past the phased program and get to the end result of a Palestinian state at the beginning. Lieberman was undoubtedly reasoning that under the Road Map the PA had obligations it would not honor and thus we'd not get to that end result.


Then there is the very important issue of reciprocity (which Netanyahu has made much of) and the need for the Palestinian Authority to simultaneously fulfill its obligations. We cannot be the only party that "walks the walk."

According to this same Road Map, the Palestinians must "declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere."

Never mind that Fatah is not exactly clean itself, what about Hamas terrorism, with rockets and mortars still launched (170 since the end of our war in Gaza)? What action will the PA take with regard to this? This is a joke. The PA, which has this obligation, cannot do it.

And there's more: "All official Palestinian institutions [must] end incitement against Israel." This is an even bigger joke than the terrorism issue. Anyone who has seen an analysis of the textbooks produced and utilized by the PA understands what a huge joke it really is.

See my article, "Texts of Hate," for some mind-blowing examples of what PA school kids are taught.

To comply with this requirement, the PA would have to publish a whole set of adjusted texts. And there's no thought of doing so. Not a glimmer of a suggestion that they must do so.

But WE have to stop building in the settlements? The Road Map calls for "reciprocal steps by the two parties."

It seems to me a very public campaign has to be launched focusing on the inequities of what is demanded of us and of the PA. Most of the world knows about the settlements as an "impediment to peace." Time they knew that there can't be peace when the Palestinian kids are taught to hate us, but that the PA, which is bound to do so under the Road Map, is taking no action in this regard. The PA is always yapping about how we don't want peace because we keep building. Where is the voice of our government saying that clearly the PA doesn't want peace if its youngsters are taught Jihad and Palestine from the river to the sea?


And this is not the end to the problems surrounding the demands made of us.

The Sharon government of 2003 did not simply accept the Road Map as is. A set of "14 reservations" was attached and given to the Bush government. It was only after the US government committed to "fully and seriously address[ing]" the issues raised by Israel that the Israeli Cabinet voted to accept the Road Map. Unfortunately, this was naive, for a commitment to address the issues is not a promise that they will ultimately be incorporated into arrangements.

But the government of Israel is on record as having reservations. Some of those reservations:

"...during the process, and as a condition to its continuance. calm will be maintained. The Palestinians will dismantle the existing security organizations and implement security reforms during the course of which new organizations will be formed and act to combat terror, violence and incitement (incitement must cease immediately and the Palestinian Authority must educate for peace). (emphasis added)

"In the first phase of the plan and as a condition for progress to the second phase, the Palestinians will complete the dismantling of terrorist organizations (Hamas. Islamic Jihad. the Popular Front, the Democratic Front Al-Aqsa Brigades and other apparatuses) and their infrastructure... (emphasis added)

"...declared references must be made to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel."

Additionally, PM Sharon is on record as having objected to the call for a freeze on settlements. It was "impossible," he said to Secretary of State Colin Powell.

"Our finest youth live there. They are already the third generation, contributing to the state and serving in elite army units. They return home and get married, so then they can't build a house and have children?

"What do you want, for a pregnant woman to have an abortion just because she is a settler?"

(You can find this quote here:

Unfortunately, bewilderingly, this objection, this perception that a freeze is impossible, was not written into the reservations.


And one last factor in helping you understand the complexities of this situation:

In April of 2004, PM Sharon met with President Bush and they exchanged letters in the context of the Road Map and the forthcoming "Disengagement." President Bush's letter contained the phrase:

"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949..."

This was broadly understood as an acknowledgement by the US that in any final agreement with the Palestinians we would retain major settlement blocs. Dore Gold, head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, called it a "significant shift in US policy."

Netanyahu is currently using this to make the case that it had become informal US policy to acknowledge that we will be retaining settlement blocs in any event, and that there is thus no reason for the US to demand that we be restricted in building within those settlements. (Gold, by the way, is a Netanyahu advisor.)

From what I've read, this letter of Bush's is a stumbling block to Obama's demands, a frustration to him as he seeks to move on pressuring us.


The good news for today: I've received some off-the-record information coming ultimately from an impeccable source, regarding Netanyahu's sincere resistance to a "two-state solution." We'll keep watching...

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, May 27, 2009.

(based on ancient Jewish Sages)


1. Shavou'ot commemorates the receipt of the Torah, which took place over 3,300 years ago, setting the Jewish People on the Road Map to the Land of Israel. Shavou'ot reflects the human path from the murder of Abel, by Cain, to the receipt of the Torah. Thus, the first and the last Hebrew letters of Shavou'ot (constitute the name of the third son of Adam & Eve, Seth, the righteous ancestor of Noah, hence of all mankind. The Hebrew meaning of Seth is the Hebrew word for the granting of the Torah at Mt. Sinai.

2. The receipt of the Torah shaped the nature of the world in general and Western democracies in particular. Shavou'ot is celebrated on the 6th day of the Jewish month of Sivan, 50 days following the Exodus. It took place 26 generations since Adam. The Hebrew word for Jehovah equals 26 in Gimatriya. There are 26 Hebrew letters in the names of the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs: Abraham, Yitzhak, Yaakov, Sarah, Rivka, Rachel and Leah.

3. Shavou'ot is a derivative of the Hebrew word Shvoua' — vow in English, referring to the exchange of vows between G-D and the Jewish People. The root of Shvoua' — and Shavou'ot — is the Hebrew word Seven — Sheva. Shavou'ot (the Festival of Weeks in Hebrew) is celebrated 7 weeks following Passover, reflecting the 7X7 basic human behavioral characteristics, which individuals are supposed to resurrect/enhance in preparation for Shavou'ot (an all night study session on the eve of Shavou'ot has taken place since the 13th century). 7 key Jewish/universal leaders — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aharon, Joseph and David — represent the qualities of the Torah. Number 7 represents wholesomeness in Judaism — 7 days of Creation and a 7 day week. The Sabbath is the 7th day, the first Hebrew verse in Genesis consists of 7 words, there are 7 directions (north, south, west, east, up, down, one's own position), 7 gates to The Temple, 7 Noah Commandments, Moses' birth/death was on the 7th day of Adar, Jethro had 7 names and 7 daughters, Passover and Sukkot last for 7 days each, each Plague lasted for 7 days, The Menorah has 7 branches, Jubilee follows seven 7-year cycles, 7 Continents, 7 notes in a musical scale, 7 days of mourning, 7 blessings in a Jewish wedding, 7 Jewish Prophetesses (Sarah, Miriam, Devorah, Chana, Abigail, Choulda and Esther), etc. Pentecost is celebrated — by Christians — on the 7th Sunday after Easter.

4. Shavou'ot is the second of the 3 Jewish Pilgrimages (Sukkot-Tabernacles, Passover and Shavou'ot), celebrated in the 3rd Jewish month, Sivan. It highlights Jewish Unity, compared by King Solomon to a triangular cord, which cannot be broken. The Torah — the first of the 3 parts of the Old Testament — was granted to the Jewish People (which consists of 3 components: Priests, Levites and Israel), by Moses (the youngest of 3 children, brother of Aharon and Miriam), a successor to the 3 Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and to Seth, the 3rd son of Adam & Eve. Shavou'ot highlights Ruth, who lived 3 generations before King David, son of Jesse, grandson of Ovad, the son of Ruth. The Torah was forged in 3 ways: Fire (commitment to principles), Water (lucidity and purity) and Desert (humility and principle-driven tenacity). The Torah is one of the 3 global pillars, along with labor and gratitude/charity. The Torah is one of the 3 pillars of Judaism, along with the Jewish People and the Land of Israel.

5. Scroll of Ruth — King David — Honor thy mother-in-law. Shavou'ot is highlighted by the studying of the Scroll of Ruth the first of Old Testament's five scrolls: Ruth (read on Shavou'ot), Song of Songs (Passover), Ecclesiastes (Sukkot), Book of Lamentations (Ninth of Av), Esther (Purim). Ruth was the great grandmother of King David. She stuck by her mother-in-law, NAOMI, for more than 10 years during Naomi's most difficult times, financially and socially. Ruth, the daughter of Eglon and the granddaughter of Balak, kings of the Moabites, had the option to be reunited with her own People, and be assured of affluence. Ruth's leadership legacy: principles (loyalty, concern, modesty and love) over convenience. Boaz — the chief of the Sanhedrin (Jewish Legislature) attributed his initial affection for Ruth, whom he married, to "I am informed of your support of your Mother-In-Law." The total sum of the Hebrew letters of Ruth — in Gimatriya — yield the number of laws granted at Mt. Sinai (606), which together with the 7 laws of Noah total The 613 Laws of Moses.

The Scroll of Ruth highlights the Judean Desert as the Cradle of Jewish history — is it "occupied territory?"

6. Shared Israel-US (Judeo-Christian) values. Shavou'ot sheds light on the unique covenant between the Jewish State and the USA — the high regard for the Torah. The Five Books of Moses in particular, and the Old Testament in general, shaped the Western morality. They impacted the world view of the Pilgrims, the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers, Checks & Balances, etc. John Locke wanted the "613 Laws of Moses" to become the legal foundation of the new society established in America. Lincoln's famous 1863 quote paraphrased the 14th century John Wycliffe's dedication to his English translation of the Bible: "a book of the people, by the people, for the people."

7. Shavou'ot is the day of birth/death of King David (as well as the day that Moses was saved by Pharaoh's daughter), who united the Jewish People, elevating them to a most powerful position. David — along with Moses and Abraham — was a role model of humility and repentance, hence the Hebrew acronym for Adam (human being in Hebrew): Abraham, David and Moses. In contrast with King Saul, King David assumed responsibility and accountability for his sins. He didn't just talk the talk; he walked the walk! 150 candles are lit at King David's tomb on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem, consistent with the 150 chapters of Psalms mostly attributed to David. Number 150 is the numerical value of Nest, the warm environment of the Torah. David's personal history (from shepherd to king) provides a lesson for individuals and nations: Every problem is an opportunity in disguise; the road to success is paved with difficulties and ups & downs; human beings are fallible but they must recognize their own fallibility, as a springboard toward improvement.

8. The Torah was granted on the small, modest Mt. Sinai — to a small People — in the desert. The Torah was delivered by Moses, "the humblest of all human beings". The content of the Torah doesn't require an impressive stage. Humility — a prerequisite for absorbing the lessons of the Torah — is essential for learning and for constructive relationships and leadership.

9. Liberation-Harvest-Optimism. The Torah was granted in the desert, a platform of Liberty, away from physical and spiritual constraints. Celebrated fifty day following the Exodus (physical deliverance) from Egypt, Shavou'ot signifies spiritual liberation. Shavou'ot — Holiday of Reaping, Holiday of First Fruit, Day of Solemn — celebrates the culmination of the agricultural, physical and spiritual harvest season of optimism, which starts on the second day of Passover. Shavou'ot highlights the critical connection between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel.

10. Dairy dishes consumed during Shavou'ot, commemorate the most common food — of shepherds like King David — during the 40 years in the desert, on the way to the Land of Milk and Honey, the Land of Israel. Unlike wine, milk is poured into simple glasses. The total sum of milk is 40 in Gimatriya, which is equal to the 40 days and nights spent by Moses on Mt. Sinai and the 40 years spent by the Jewish People in the Desert. 40 is also the value of the first Hebrew letter M of key Exodus-Terms: Moses, Miriam, Manna, Egypt, Desert, Menorah, Tabernacle, Mitzvah-Commandment, etc.

40 generations passed from Moses — who delivered the "Written Torah" — to Rabbi Ashi and Rabbi Rabina, who concluded the editing of the Talmud, the "Oral Torah." The first and the last letters in the Talmud is the Hebrew M, which equals 40 in Gimatriya.

Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by H. David Kirk, May 27, 2009.

Friends, this letter was sent to the Chancellery a week ago and is now being sent to German media


Dear Chancellor Merkel,

I am writing to you as a German Jew, born in 1918, and abroad since 1934. You have reawakened images of my childhood in Germany, and memories of my forward-looking and brave mother. Much like you, who are able to see the current renewal of antisemitism as a threat to Jews, my mother had recognized the ever-darkening future in the Germany of 1933. Like my mother, who early on began to prepare my brothers and me for a life abroad, you know how to adapt to difficult circumstances. When you received Ahmadinejad's letter with its hateful threats against Israel, you refused to respond.

Today, Israel's very existence is threatened by Iran's nearly perfected weapons of mass destruction, and by its president's virulent rhetoric to wipe Israel off the map. With these threats growing ever stronger and closer one is bound to ask: what is to be done? Surprisingly, my work in the sociology of adoptive kinship, in spite of its very different theme, gives a clue: catastrophic events can sometimes be transformed into opportunities. In that context I propose a new kind of non-financial "Wiedergutmachung", the essence of which is found in the title of my book SHARED FATE.

If Germany were to acknowledge the threat that it, like other Western nations, faces from militant Islam, it could recognize a 'shared fate' situation with embattled Israel. Thus, if Germans understood that their country, like other Western nations, would be endangered if Iran had nuclear weapons, they would more readily declare themselves in support of Israel, by diplomacy if possible, by force if necessary. In the era of persecution and genocide none of the democracies dared to step forward to protect Jews. Even today such a step would require great courage and conviction, calling for the kind of leadership that you, Chancellor Merkel, have already exhibited.

As pioneer in this mutual aid outreach to Israel, Germany would usher in a worldshaking epoch in its relationship with the Jewish people.

Contact the poster at hdkirk@shaw.ca

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, May 27, 2009.
This was written by Rabbi Avi Shafran and it appeared today on the Jewish World Review.

Odd as it might seem, the recent report that a library at Yemen Children's Hospital was named after Palestinian suicide bomber Wafa Idris, that terrorist Samir Al-Kuntar spoke at the naming-ceremony and that little girls read poems in honor of the occasion brought back a Shavuos memory.

According to the report, which originated in a Yemeni news service and was translated by MEMRI, the local Province Governor expressed pride "that the Arab nation has stalwart resistance [fighters] like Samir Al-Kuntar." In 1974, Mr. Kuntar murdered an Israeli father in front of his four-year-old daughter and then smashed the little girl's skull against a rock with a rifle butt.

Every Jewish holiday is special in its own way, but Shavuos, which falls on May 29 and 30 this year, is unusual: it has no specific "active" observances, nothing like Passover's seder and matzoh, or Sukkos' booths or "four species," or Rosh Hashana's shofar-blowing.

The 18th century Chassidic master known as Rabbi Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev perceived something subtle in that fact. Shavuos, he noted, is identified by Jewish tradition as the anniversary of the Jewish people's acceptance of the Torah at Mt. Sinai. Since the act of accepting is an inherently passive one, he explained, the holiday is pointedly devoid of physically active observances. It is a time of receiving the Torah anew, and most appropriately expressed through Torah-study.

Hence, likely, the ancient Jewish custom to stay awake the entire night of Shavuos immersed in the texts of our tradition. Every year I experience a personal Shavuos miracle; it is one that I suspect is shared by many others. By the end of our family's festive meal on Shavuos night, the prospect of staying awake an hour, much less six or seven, seems an impossible one. Yet, somehow, entering the study-hall, some holy energy seems to seize me, and, even as my mind and body increasingly rebel against the deprivation of slumber, my soul jumps for joy.

Seven years ago, my nearly 12-year-old son Dovie — today a strapping 19-year-old studying in yeshiva in Israel — insisted on joining me in study in the large main sanctuary of a local synagogue, which was crowded with scores of Jewish men and boys doing the same.

The two of us, salt-and-pepper-bearded, could-stand-to-lose-a-few-pounds father and reddish-haired, dimpled and determined son, spent most of the night engrossed in Talmud. We began with a page of the tractate he was studying in school — a long passage dealing with the imperative of alleviating an animal's pain — and then turned to several pages of another tractate he and I regularly learn together — which concerned the status of land ownership in Jerusalem.

Dovie seemed entirely awake throughout it all, and asked the perceptive questions I had come to expect from him. We paused over the course of the night only for him to participate in classes for boys his age in an adjoining room, taught by an older yeshiva boy. The experience was enthralling, as it always is, and while it was a challenge to concentrate (and at times even to keep my eyes from closing) during the prayer service that followed at 5:00 AM, Dovie and I both "made it" and then, hand in hand, walked home, where we promptly crashed. But before my head touched my pillow (a millisecond or two before I entered REM sleep), I summoned the energy to thank G-d for sharing His Torah with us.

That silent prayer came back to me like a thunderclap a few days later, when I caught up on some reading I had missed (though only in the word's most simple sense) over the holiday. Apparently, during the precise hours Dovie and I were studying holy texts, the presses at The Washington Times were printing a story datelined Gaza City.

It began with a description of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, Abu Ali, being "lovingly dress[ed] by his mother in a costume of a suicide bomber, complete with small kaffiyeh, a belt of electrical tape and fake explosives made of plywood."

"I encourage him, and he should do this," said his mother; and Abu Ali himself apparently agreed. "I hope to be a martyr," he said. "I hope when I get to 14 or 15 to explode myself."

My thoughts flashed back to Shavuos and to my own son, and I thanked G-d again, from the bottom of my heart.

Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 27, 2009.


Iranians are a cultured people yearning for modernism and democracy. They detest their regime. So do most of the clergy, which thinks that the mullahs should not run government and have perverted Shiism. The regime keeps the people down, robs them, and strives for global conquest for its religion

The regime has subverted all institutions or set up parallel, Islamic ones. It has commissars to monitor them and a separate military to control the people. It's like the USSR.

The rulers' allegiance is solely to their personal wealth and to their radical version of Islam. They have said they don't care about Iran or its boundaries. Proud of their Persian heritage, the majority resent the mullah's denigration of it.

Barring Iran's religious expansion is the U.S. and Israel. Hence the Iranian regime but not its masses hate those states. Iranian emphasizes anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism to curry vafor among the Arabs, thereby magnifying Iranian power to expand.

Amir Taheri, in The Persian Night: Iran From Khomeini to Ahmadinejad, suggests trying to utilize the divisions within Iran to help the people overthrow their regime. Unfortunately, the US foreign policy establishment seems oblivious to what Iran is like. It is under the already failed illusion that diplomacy can tame fanatical imperialism. When does it ever?

The Islamic Republic [like the Arabs] considers US willingness to negotiate not as friendship but as weakness enabling it to harden its position. Not soften but harden! The mullahs don't recognize other sides' opinions. They consider foreign negotiators not as partners but as adversaries. They can pledge benign intent, but that is part of their war effort.

What happens when the US tries to negotiate with fanatical totalitarians, while remaining mindful of their evil? Academics, NGOs, journalists, and others claim that that position thwarts negotiations, though it worked for Pres. Reagan, because he held fast to it. The State Dept. censors the rhetoric and compromises away our position in order to be able to get an agreement on something, anything. Thus the State Dept. marginalized our diplomat on human rights while making a string of concessions to N. Korea [which now has the bomb]. Iran was a menace even before nuclear development.

If we let Iran remain a regional power, we betray its people and the rest of the region (Elliott Abrams, Commentary, 5/2009, p.68).

Our State Dept. and its liberal supporters remain unaware of such realities. The State Dept. does not know its business. It and Pres. Obama are preparing to sacrifice Israel to Iran. Iran would become a greater menace to us.

For an unrealistic U.S. assessment of Iran's menace:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d14-Sec-Gates-On-Iran


Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA calls it a "house of cards" and the next terrorist state. The U.S. thinks that granting statehood would earn Arab support and be good for the U.S. (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/7).

Dr. Lerner means that whether Abbas succeeds in running the new state or Hamas does, it would be first of all a terrorist base and as a distant second, a state for its people. It would exist for war and Islamist expansion. That would be good neither for the U.S. nor for Israel nor for Arabs nor for civilization.

For a likelier scenario: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d14-Terrorist-forces-of-Hamas-and-Palestinian-Authority-to-combine


Politicians attempt to justify their policies about diplomacy and boundaries on demographic grounds. Leftists try to frighten Jews with the Arab "demographic bomb" [just as did rightist Rabbi Meir Kahane]. The politicians, however, have obsolete notions and have been using erroneous statistics. Arab birth rates are converging with Jewish ones. They are moving to stabilize at a 1:4 rate in Israel.

The Zionists and British reduced the death rate in Palestine. Since the Arabs had a high birth rate, their population exploded. Intellectuals got used to that situation, and have not realized that eventually, birth rates usually then fall.

Israeli Jewish birth rates surpass most Western rates. [The author did not mention the Ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox Jews, who multiply as a religious imperative rather than keep families small for money and convenience. If that explains the anomaly of high Jewish birth rates, the Jewish rate is secure.]

Arab women used to have 9 children each. Now, "Israeli women" at a rate of 2.77 have more children than women in Iran, Bahrain, Algeria, Morocco, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. It is close in Syria. [The source didn't specify whether his figure for Israeli women includes a higher average for Arabs in Israel and whether he is discounting Christians who immigrated under forged papers identifying them as Jews.]

The question is not whether the Arabs would swamp the Jews in Israel but what kind of minority and citizenry will they constitute
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/8).

What kind of minority? Long-term political trends are almost as unpredictable as demographic ones. The current trend is toward domination by Radical Islam. Radical Islam wears out its welcome, but fastens its rule by force. I think that bi-national states don't work well, and cannot work when one nationality is Muslim Arab, seeking to dominate the other.


Pres. Obama tried to coax the Arabs into making the Saudi plan more palatable to Israel. He asked the King of Jordan to persuade them to delete the demand that Israel let in millions of Arabs. The Arab League and Syria promptly rejected it, as if it would be an unreasonable concession (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/8). Abbas rejected it too (Caroline Glick in
http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/9).

The Saudi plan would enable the Muslims to overwhelm the Jews from within Israel. That is its purpose. By adhering to that purpose, the Arabs are telling the US that conquest remains their goal, not peace. They are faithful to their religious imperative. Will Pres. Obama understand?

Obama tried to negotiate a solution. The Arabs prefer to negotiate victory.

Obama's overture to Syria, to split it from Iran, interests Syria in what it can get, but Syria seems stubbornly faithful to Iran. Obama's type of diplomacy seems doomed in its attempts, as it did in its articulation.

About an Obama snub of Israel see:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d18-Another-Obama-snub-of-Israel


Pres. Obama is in a hurry to set up a Palestinian Arab state in the Territories. PM Netanyahu suggests first building a civilized society there that can make peace. Who is right?

Israel rushed out of Gaza. Gaza was taken over by Hamas, which then fired 10,000 rockets at Israel. Wouldn't it be foolish to invite the same scenario in Judea-Samaria [where Hamas is more popular than Abbas, and anyway Abbas also favors jihad against Jewish sovereignty anywhere]?

Hamas sees the West accommodating Hizbullah, so it awaits the same accommodation, also retaining zeal and terrorism. It offers a 10-year truce, meaning that for 10 years, it arms, then it resumes war [if it keeps the truce, which it usually does not].
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/8.)


Israel wants to be allowed to repair the warplane's computer itself and promptly, in wartime. The Pentagon refuses, out of concern that Israel would gain access to U.S. technology. It counter-offers a few spare computers, to replace damaged ones. This leaves open the prospect that, just as in the Yom Kippur War, a U.S. Administration might delay re-supply to extort dangerous concessions for the Arabs http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/8). The U.S. is [or was] an ally but also, incompatibly, an arms-selling competitor.

For an earlier piece on this subject:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d6-Why-thge-US-bars-Israeli-electronics-in-jets

Now what was that, in the NY Times and among the outright antisemites about "unstinting U.S. support for Israel?"

Why Israel needs best planes:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d15-Russia-to-seel-31-advanced-Migs-to-Syria

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Maayana Miskin, May 27, 2009.

Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe (Boogie) Yaalon believes that the time has come for Israel to "free itself from the failed paradigm" of the "two-state solution." Yaalon spoke Tuesday at a meeting of MKs dedicated to finding an alternative to the creation of a Palestinian Authority-led Arab state.

While the creation of a PA-led state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is perceived as a necessity both in Israel and worldwide, such a state would not solve the Israel-PA conflict, said Yaalon. In fact, he said, it is doubtful that the possibility of creating such a state exists, due to Arab and Muslim reluctance to take any step that would imply recognition of Israel or compromise on Arab claims to the entire Land of Israel.

Israel's Mistakes

Israel's mistake lies in accepting a-symmetrical talks with the PA, Yaalon said. From the beginning of talks, he explained, Israel has accepted the idea of a Palestinian national movement with the PA as its representative, while the PA has resolutely refused to accept the Jewish national movement of Zionism or the idea of a Jewish homeland in the land of Israel.

Furthermore, while the PA demands that Arabs and Muslims be allowed to live in Israel, Israel accepts that a PA state would not have Jewish citizens, he said. And while Israel gives in on crucial issues such as the status of Jerusalem or the borders of a PA state, the PA refuses to bend in the slightest.

Israel has also been mistaken in assuming that the Israeli presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is the cause of Israel-Arab tension, he said. Arab attacks on Israel began well before the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel gained control of those areas, he said, and the Arab world's real goal is not a state in those areas, but rather, on the ruins of the State of Israel.

For this reason, he said, the PA is actually uninterested in a "two-state solution." Former PA Chairman Yasser Arafat waged war on Israel in order to avoid the creation of a PA state, he argued.

"There are those who will argue that the PA wanted to establish a state in the 1967 borders but was unable to do so," he said. "I say the problem was not one of ability, but of desire."

If the PA does not desire an independent state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and will not accept such a state as the fulfillment of its national goals, the "two-state solution" has no chance to bring peace, he concluded.

The Solution

Israel must give up on seeking to fully solve its conflict with the PA and the Arab world as a whole, Yaalon said. "I believe we should not approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the phrase 'solution' in the foreseeable future," he told his audience. "Instead, we should seek 'crisis management' or long-term coping strategies."

Israel should still seek a solution in the long term, he added. However, the process of seeking a solution should be "bottom-up," and not "top-down." Instead of hoping that a diplomatic agreement with the PA will lead to peace and security, the PA should prove that it is capable of self-rule prior to the signing of a diplomatic agreement, he argued.

Yaalon presented five crucial elements of the "bottom-up" process:

Educational Reform:

The PA currently teaches Arab children that the entirety of Israel is an illegal colonialist entity, Yaalon said, and denies any historic Jewish connection to the Land of Israel. In addition, the PA teaches Jihad (holy war) against Israel and honors suicide bombers.

Changing the PA school system to teach the value of life, not of death, and to accurately portray Jewish history is crucial, he said.

Economic Reform:

In order to create a viable economy, the PA must strengthen small businesses and create a stable middle class, Yaalon said.

Attempts to create a PA economy through international aid have failed due to a corrupt PA leadership that misappropriates funds, and terrorist groups that attempt to keep PA Arabs living in poverty, he said. To avoid the problems posed by corrupt leadership, the world should focus on PA businessmen and support their initiatives.

Political Reform:

Beyond creating a political entity, the PA must allow for freedom of expression, freedom of the press and protect human rights.

Yaalon referred to "the American mistake" of supporting strong dictators over true democratic activists. Activists who seek true democracy and freedom should win encouragement from the West, he said.

Legal Reform:

The goal should be "One authority, one law, one weapon," Yaalon said, referring to the disarming of rogue terrorist groups and the enforcement of law throughout the PA territories.

Security Reform:

The PA must begin to truly fight terrorism, Yaalon said. Among other things, the PA must rid itself of the "revolving door" by which terrorists serve only light sentences, and the sentencing of terrorists who murdered Israelis for "harming the public interest" instead of "murder." These things encourage terrorism, he said.

The PA must be able to fight terrorism properly on multiple levels, he said, from gathering intelligence information to putting terrorists on trial.

No Guarantees

There is no guarantee that the "bottom-up" proposal can be put into effect, Yaalon said, because it relies on the Palestinian Authority to take the necessary action.

In order to increase the chances that the PA will do what is necessary, Israel must make it clear that the PA has no chance of defeating Israel, he said, or of forcing further Israeli concessions and withdrawals without making concessions of its own.

"The Palestinians' extreme violence does not stem from despair over their situation, as the West tends to assume, but rather from hope — hope that the State of Israel will disappear," he said. "Destroying the hope of defeating Israel will encourage new ideas."

Maayana Miskin writes for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, May 26, 2009.

This comes from the May 15, 2009 Investor's Business Daily.


Middle East: The fashionable notion that a new Palestinian state would help end Islamofascist Iran's nuclear program isn't just a false premise. Such an Israeli concession would only embolden Iran.

The paltry economic sanctions that Western nations have agonized over imposing on Iran have not persuaded the mullahs in Tehran to abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions. A new president of the United States praising Iran's ancient culture in a special video message to the Iranian people is not producing results either.

Even the Israeli air force's practice run over the Mediterranean last June of a bombing raid of Iran's widely dispersed and heavily defended nuclear facilities had zero effect in getting the regime to cease its uranium enrichment activities.

Instead, Tehran responded to the exercises by placing its Shahab-3B ballistic missiles into launch readiness, and proceeded to include among its targets within Israel the Jewish state's nuclear power plant at Dimona, the facility through which Israel developed the bomb in the 1960s.

The Iranian missiles can travel nearly 1,300 miles, and Revolutionary Guard commander Gen. Mohammad Jafari, at the time stated that Israel "is completely within the range of the Islamic Republic's missiles. Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime — despite all its abilities — cannot confront it."

Clearly, even a credible threat of massive force is ineffectual in stopping or slowing Iran, never mind the various and sundry forms of "tough" and not-so-tough diplomacy the free world has practiced in the years since Tehran's nuclear aspirations were exposed. The only language Iran seems to understand is direct force itself.

That this is the case should surprise no one who has had his eyes open to the true nature and behavior of the Islamic Revolutionary regime that took power in Iran 30 years ago, during the foreign policy impotence of the Carter administration.

Iran's rulers see themselves not as politicians, whose primary interest is the welfare of their nation and its people. They are revolutionary crusaders who act in the name of worldwide Islam. The interests of waging Jihad against those viewed as Islam's enemies — like Israel, the United States and Western Europe — outweigh even the existence of Iran as a consideration, never mind its well-being.

"We do not worship Iran; we worship Allah," the Ayatollah Khomeini said in 1979. "I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Pair that sentiment with the statement in March from Khomeini's successor, Iran's current supreme leader the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who called Israel a "cancerous tumor." Or place it alongside Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's infamous remark that the Jewish state should be "wiped off the map."

It all points to an inescapable conclusion: The fanatics who run Iran want Israel destroyed, and they would gladly let their own land "go up in smoke" as a price.

Yet, even the Sunni Muslim nations who fear the prospect of a nuclear Shiite Iran are suggesting that a Palestinian state would appease the ayatollahs. Last Thursday, Jordan's Sunni King Abdullah turned the screws while meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warning him there could be no peace in the Middle East without a Palestinian state.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration, unlike its predecessor, is focusing on Israel relenting and establishing a fully independent Palestinian homeland, not keeping the spotlight on Iran's nuclear program as the pre-eminent threat to the region and the world.

Consider that Khamenei's reaction to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was to gloat. He said while it was "short of Palestinian rights and demands, it is however a big victory that shows the inability of the occupier regime" in Jerusalem.

Iran will not react to the establishment of an independent Palestine alongside Israel by recognizing Israel — any more than will the Hamas Palestinian terrorists it funds, which Palestinians elected into power.

On the contrary, Tehran will view it as a step toward the Islamic conquest of Israel — a fresh sign of Zionist weakness that its nuclear stance helped bring about.

As always, appeasement only fans the flames of evil.

Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Shoshanna Walker, May 26, 2009.

And how could he stop them? Boy is he in la la land!

This was written by The Jerusalem Post Staff and it appeared May 20, 2009.


Amid much speculation over US President Barack Obama's upcoming address to the Muslim world, reports published on Wednesday outlined the details of his Middle East peace plan, which are said to include a demilitarized Palestinian state.

The US president's initiative, which was formulated in consultation with Jordan's King Abdullah II during the two leaders' recent meetings at the White House, reportedly does not significantly stray from the pan-Arab peace initiative proposed in 2002. Rather, it bolsters certain details within the Saudi-proposed plan.

The Obama-Abdullah plan was put together in response to concerns from both Israel and the US that the Arab plan was too general and intransigent, and according to a report in Wednesday's Yediot Ahronot, will call on Arab countries to take trust-building measures in order to clear the air with Israel.

Obama is expected to present the initiative in an address to the Arab and Muslim world from Cairo in three weeks, and set out conditions for a demilitarized Palestinian state, with east Jerusalem as its capital, within the next four years. Yediot reported that Obama's vision for an independent, democratic and contiguous Palestinian state would not have its own army and would be forbidden from making military agreements with other states, in order to provide for Israel's security.

The matter of borders would be solved with territorial exchanges between Israel and the Palestinians, and the Old City of Jerusalem would be established as an international zone.

The initiative would require the Palestinians to give up their claim of a "right of return," according to Yediot, and Europe and the US would arrange compensation for refugees, including foreign passports for those residing abroad.

Obama's plan would also promote holding simultaneous talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and Syria and Lebanon. Yediot said that when such talks come to an agreement on Palestinian statehood, diplomatic and economic relations would be established between Israel and Arab states.

The report added that in his Cairo address, Obama would reiterate calls for Israel to cease all settlement construction.

Reports of the US president's new initiative came days after his meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Washington. During the premier's visit, Obama emphasized his commitment to a two-state solution. Netanyahu reiterated his goal to live side-by-side with the Palestinians, though he did not specifically mention a two-state solution.

Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, May 26, 2009.

This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared in the Spectator


In remarks made after his meeting with Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama said:

I suggested to the Prime Minister that he has an historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure. That means that all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they have previously agreed to. Those obligations were outlined in the road map...

But the first obligation in the Road Map was laid upon the Palestinians — to dismantle their infrastructure of terror. It was their failure to meet that first obligation, without which the rest of the Road Map could not be implemented, which led to its collapse as a strategy. Yet Obama appears to think that the only obligations which must be met are those which apply to Israel, with the Palestinians apparently getting a free pass.

This is of course all of a piece with his belief that Israel is the cause of the Middle East impasse which would be solved by the creation of a state of Palestine. The fact that even now Fatah states explicitly that it won't accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, let alone Hamas repeatedly restating its intention to destroy Israel and kill every Jew, is not, in Obama's mind, the real obstacle to a solution. Not only does Obama not see the creation of 'Hamastan' in the West Bank as an obstacle — he sees instead the refusal to treat Hamas as part of the solution as an obstacle. Accordingly, he presents as the obstacle not the people continuing to wage war but the country that is the victim of that war — which he blames for not agreeing to destroy its own security.

The irrationality and injustice of this is manifest on every level. But what cannot be stressed enough is the way both Obama and the 'progressive' legions behind him have made as their rallying cry support for a proposed racist and religiously exclusionary state that denies civil rights for all. Those screaming 'apartheid' at Israel are demanding the establishment of a putative Palestine state which would allow no Jews to live there, let alone enjoy the equal civil and human rights afforded to Arab citizens of Israel. As the former CIA Director James Woolsey is reported to have observed earlier this month:

...the world has a tendency to 'define deviancy down for non-Jews.' As a result, governments around the world, including the Obama administration, never even mention the possibility that Jews should be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges in any future Palestinian polity that Israeli Arabs exercise today in the Jewish state.

So, instead of what amounts to a Hitlerian program of Judenrein in any prospective Palestinian state — meaning, as a practical matter, if not a de jure one, that no Jews can reside or work there, there could be approximately twice the number of Israeli Jews as currently reside in so-called 'settlements' on the West Bank. They should be free to build synagogues and Jewish schools. And newspapers that serve the Jewish population in any future state of 'Palestine' should be permitted to flourish there.

Jews should also have a chance to elect representatives to a future Palestinian legislature. They should be able to expect to have representation as well in other governing institutions, like the executive and judicial branches. In order for the foregoing to operate, Jews in the Palestinian state must be able to live without fearing every day for their lives. In Mr. Woolsey`s view, 'Once Palestinians are behaving that way, they deserve a state.'

On all these essential preconditions for a solution that pass the basic test of civilised values, Obama is silent. Quite apart from the injustice of his approach to the Middle East impasse and the irrationality of linking it with the Iran crisis, his policy of 'engagement' with Iran is hardly making him popular in the Arab world. He agreed with Netanyahu that there was a new and more promising mood in the Arab world. But he seems unable to grasp that what's behind that new mood is terror of Iran getting the bomb — and despair at the way the US is resorting to the policy of appeasement. Accordingly, Obama is actually squandering the opportunity to enlist those Arab states in the fight against a common enemy of Iran. As John Hannah writes in the Washington Post:

Notably, the administration's approach is increasingly at odds with that of U.S. allies in the Middle East that seek to maximize pressure on Tehran. For the past month, Egypt has mounted a courageous public effort to rally America's Arab friends in opposition to an Iranian campaign of subversion that stretches from Iraq to Morocco. Instead of rushing to the defense of distressed allies, Obama has largely remained silent, instead opting to reiterate his interest in reaching some sort of accommodation with Tehran, the source of the region's problems.

This was amplified by this telling exchange at the press conference after his talks with Netanyahu:

Q : Thank you, Mr. President. Aren't you concerned that your outstretched hand has been interpreted by extremists, especially Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Meshal, as weakness? And since my colleague already asked about the deadline, if engagement fails, what then, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, it's not clear to me why my outstretched hand would be interpreted as weakness.

Q: Qatar, an example.


Q: The example of Qatar. They would have preferred to be on your side and then moved to the extremists, to Iran.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Oh, I think — yes, I'm not sure about that interpretation.

On the face of it, the evidence that has emerged from this meeting between Obama and Netanyahu could not be more stark — as David Horowitz observes — that the Obama administration is set upon a strategy that would effectively throw Israel to the Islamist wolves. The worst fears of Israel's government and friends appear to have been amply confirmed.

And yet and yet; notwithstanding all this, sanity might eventually still prevail. A small hope indeed — but it may just happen.

Consider. The fact that Obama is making this lethally false linkage between creating a state of Palestine and tackling the problem of Iran should not blind us to the fact that the overriding issue is indeed not Palestine but Iran. That is the issue which will define Obama's presidency. The great question is whether Obama has concluded that, when push comes to shove, America will have no option but to 'live with' a nuclear Iran. My understanding is that, while there are those in his administration for whom the answer is 'yes', there are others for whom the answer is 'no'. In his post-meeting remarks, Obama himself acknowledged the danger a nuclear Iran poses not just to Israel but to America and the whole of the Middle East. Certainly, he thinks 'engagement' can defuse that danger. But what will he do when it becomes apparent that it will not?

Obama has already demonstrated that, when brought up sharply against the suicidal consequences of his naivety, he can shift his position. We saw this in recent days by his twin retreats from publishing more pictures of 'enhanced interrogation' in Iraq and from his previous opposition to military tribunals for al Qaeda suspects. He has stated that if Iran hasn't unclenched its fist by — variously — the autumn/end of the year he will introduce 'tough sanctions'. This is not altogether reassuring, both in the vagueness of the timetable, the weakness of any sanctions regime and the fact that he is still giving Iran the greatest gift of all — time — to progress towards its nuclear goal. But it may just be that he really does think in his liberal hubris that making nice with Iran will draw the poison — and when he realises it has not done so, he may not be too keen on becoming the President that allowed Iran to go nuclear on his watch.

A further point about Obama is this. He is a man of the left. The left is not merely Manichean, but insulates itself from any possibility of heresy by surrounding itself only by those with whom it agrees. It is therefore rarely forced to follow through its reasoning and thus see its patent falsehoods and idiocies exposed. From his history and past associations, it's a fair bet that Obama has thus never had his assumptions properly challenged by exposure to rationality and evidence. In recent years, Israel has been led by politicians who were either incapable, for various reasons, of properly articulating that rationality or themselves subscribed to many of the false premises of post-modern, post-moral, ahistorical thinking that characterises 'progressive' opinion in the west. Netanyahu breaks that mould. By simply talking to him, Obama may have heard for the first time an argument that is intellectually capable of puncturing at least one or two of his illusions.

We have no way of knowing whether any of that took place; or, if it did, whether it had any significant effect at all. No-one should take too much notice of the public show of relaxation and relative harmony with which this meeting was subsequently spun. Nor should we believe the counter-spin that Netanyahu returned to Israel a grimmer and wiser man. He knew the score about Obama well before he set out on this trip; and he would indeed be a fool if he were not therefore playing a carefully thought-through diplomatic and strategic game. Let's hope he is; because if ideologue Obama does indeed turn out to stifle pragmatic Obama over the issue of Iran, Israel really will be on its own.

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, May 26, 2009.

This study was written by Hillel ben David (Greg Killian)
http://www.betemunah.org/ (360) 584-9352


In this paper I would like to examine the existence of the Torah before it was presented to Israel, by Moses, on Mount Sinai. There are many who believe that the Torah is to be obeyed only by the Jews. If there is clear evidence that the Torah was observed and taught before Mount Sinai and before there were Jews, then this should end the matter.

The Midrash asserts that although they lived long before the Torah was given to us at Mount Sinai, our forefathers kept all the mitzvot (Divine commandments) that the Torah would command their descendants in the future. This idea is reiterated by Chazal in many other places.

The patriarchs taught these mitzvot to their children, the twelve tribes. They, in turn, also kept all of the mitzvot of the Torah. And not only were our forefathers mindful of future biblical commands, they even heeded future rabbinic ordinances.

HaShem revealed to our forefathers the mitzvot that he was going to give to the Jews at a later time. The forefathers, out of their profound love to do the will of HaShem, voluntarily accepted upon themselves to perform these mitzvot "ahead of schedule." It is an accepted principle that even if one is not subject to a given commandment, it is nevertheless considered meritorious for him to observe that mitzvah. He is even rewarded for doing so.

The Hebrew word for commands is mitzvot (plural). The word mitzvot means more than commands, it also carries the meaning of good deeds. In other words, when we obey the mitzvot we are performing the work of HaShem, which, by definition, is always a good deed.

So lets begin our study of the mitzvot that our forefathers kept. I would like to work backwards from Mount Sinai. Lets start by establishing when the Torah was given on Mount Sinai:

Shemot (Exodus) 19:1-17 In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt — on the very day — they came to the Desert of Sinai. After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain. Then Moses went up to God, and HaShem called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites." So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words HaShem had commanded him to speak. The people all responded together, "We will do everything HaShem has said." So Moses brought their answer back to HaShem. HaShem said to Moses, "I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you." Then Moses told HaShem what the people had said. And HaShem said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes And be ready by the third day, because on that day HaShem will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, 'Be careful that you do not go up the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death. He shall surely be stoned or shot with arrows; not a hand is to be laid on him. Whether man or animal, he shall not be permitted to live.' Only when the ram's horn sounds a long blast may they go up to the mountain." After Moses had gone down the mountain to the people, he consecrated them, and they washed their clothes. Then he said to the people, "Prepare yourselves for the third day. Abstain from sexual relations." On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain.

The Torah was given on the sixth day of the third month, the month of Sivan. We can discern this by counting the days, in the above passage, from the first day of the third month, Sivan one. Sivan six is exactly fifty days after Passover. Passover occurs on the fifteenth day of the first month, the month of Nisan. Because the Torah was given fifty days after Passover, Sivan six is one of the Lord's feasts, and is known in Hebrew as Hag Shavuot, and in Greek as Pentecost. Nisan is the first month, Iyar is the second month, and Sivan is the third month.

Moses taught HaShem's laws and decrees days before the Torah was give on Mount Sinai:

Shemot (Exodus) 18:13-16 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, "What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?" Moses answered him, "Because the people come to me to seek God's will. Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God's decrees and laws."

Moses is telling the people about HaShem's laws and decrees before the written Torah is given. The written Torah will be given in Exodus chapter 20, in a few days from this passage.

One of the mitzvot that our forefathers kept before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai was the mitzva of Shabbat:

Shemot (Exodus) 16:1-30 The whole Israelite community set out from Elim and came to the Desert of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had come out of Egypt. In the desert the whole community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The Israelites said to them, "If only we had died by HaShem's hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death." Then HaShem said to Moses, "I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions. On the sixth day they are to prepare what they bring in, and that is to be twice as much as they gather on the other days." So Moses and Aaron said to all the Israelites, "In the evening you will know that it was HaShem who brought you out of Egypt, And in the morning you will see the glory of HaShem, because he has heard your grumbling against him. Who are we, that you should grumble against us?" Moses also said, "You will know that it was HaShem when he gives you meat to eat in the evening and all the bread you want in the morning, because he has heard your grumbling against him. Who are we? You are not grumbling against us, but against HaShem." Then Moses told Aaron, "Say to the entire Israelite community, 'Come before HaShem, for he has heard your grumbling.'" While Aaron was speaking to the whole Israelite community, they looked toward the desert, and there was the glory of HaShem appearing in the cloud. HaShem said to Moses, "I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, 'At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am HaShem your God.'" That evening quail came and covered the camp, and in the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp. When the dew was gone, thin flakes like frost on the ground appeared on the desert floor. When the Israelites saw it, they said to each other, "What is it?" For they did not know what it was. Moses said to them, "It is the bread HaShem has given you to eat. This is what HaShem has commanded: 'Each one is to gather as much as he needs. Take an omer for each person you have in your tent.'" The Israelites did as they were told; some gathered much, some little. And when they measured it by the omer, he who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little. Each one gathered as much as he needed. Then Moses said to them, "No one is to keep any of it until morning." However, some of them paid no attention to Moses; they kept part of it until morning, but it was full of maggots and began to smell. So Moses was angry with them. Each morning everyone gathered as much as he needed, and when the sun grew hot, it melted away. On the sixth day, they gathered twice as much — two omers for each person — and the leaders of the community came and reported this to Moses. He said to them, "This is what HaShem commanded: 'Tomorrow is to be a day of rest, a holy Sabbath to HaShem. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.'" So they saved it until morning, as Moses commanded, and it did not stink or get maggots in it. "Eat it today," Moses said, "because today is a Sabbath to HaShem. You will not find any of it on the ground today. Six days you are to gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any." Nevertheless, some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none. Then HaShem said to Moses, "How long will you refuse to keep my commands and my instructions? Bear in mind that HaShem has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out." So the people rested on the seventh day.

On the sixteenth day of Iyar, the second month, HaShem began sending His people the bread from heaven. As part of His provision, HaShem commands His people to rest on the Sabbath, and not to collect the manna. This Sabbath mitzva was given more than two weeks before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai.

Three weeks before the manna was given with the mitzva of Sabbath, another interesting incident occurred:

Shemot (Exodus) 15:22-26 Then Moses led Israel from the Red Sea and they went into the Desert of Shur. For three days they traveled in the desert without finding water. When they came to Marah, they could not drink its water because it was bitter. (That is why the place is called Marah.) So the people grumbled against Moses, saying, "What are we to drink?" Then Moses cried out to HaShem, and HaShem showed him a piece of wood. He threw it into the water, and the water became sweet. There HaShem made a decree and a law for them, and there he tested them. He said, "If you listen carefully to the voice of HaShem your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to His commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am HaShem, who heals you."

The crossing of the Red Sea took place on Nisan twenty-one, seven days after Passover. Again we see HaShem giving His people laws and decrees before the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai. This event took place forty-two days before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai.

Before the events at Marah, HaShem gave a very special mitzva to His firstborn, His people. HaShem gave His people the mitzva of Passover:

Shemot (Exodus) 12:1-12 HaShem said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire — head, legs and inner parts. Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is HaShem's Passover. "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn — both men and animals — and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am HaShem.

We don't know the exact day that this mitzva was given, but we know that it took place in Nisan some time before the tenth day of the month. This is more than fifty-five days before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai.

Joseph demonstrated that he knew and obeyed the Torah more than two hundred years before it was given to Moses:

Bereshit (Genesis) 39:7-9 And after a while his master's wife took notice of Joseph and said, "Come to bed with me!" But he refused. "With me in charge," he told her, "my master does not concern himself with anything in the house; everything he owns he has entrusted to my care. No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?"

Since sin is defined as disobedience to the Torah, we know that Joseph and Potiphar's wife were both aware that adultery was forbidden; and this was known more that two hundred years before the Torah was given to Moses.

More than two hundred years before the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai, Judah was obeying a part of that Torah, notice:

Bereshit (Genesis) 38:6-10 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in HaShem's sight; so HaShem put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in HaShem's sight; so he put him to death also.

How did Judah know it was Onan's duty to lie with his brother's wife to produce offspring? Who taught him this portion of the Torah? Notice the words that the Torah uses to describe this command:

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 25:5-6 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

So, in a couple of hundred years, from Judah's time, the Torah will use Judah's word duty to describe what Judah asked Onan to do.

Notice also, in Bereshit (Genesis) 38:6-10, that what Onan did was wicked in the HaShem's sight, so He killed Onan. This would not be very fair if Onan did not already know that it was wicked for him to do such a thing. Thus we see that HaShem had revealed His Torah to Judah and to Onan more than two hundred years before the Torah was revealed to Moses.

Isaac knew the Torah that was given to Moses more than two hundred years before Moses. We see this in his command to his son Jacob:

Bereshit (Genesis) 28:1 So Isaac called for Jacob and blessed him and commanded him: "Do not marry a Canaanite woman.

Moses quoted HaShem when he gave a similar command, some two hundred years later:

Shemot (Exodus) 34:14-16 Do not worship any other god, for HaShem, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

Thus we see that Isaac had Torah insight more than two hundred years before the Torah was given.

More than two hundred years before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai, the following event was recorded in scripture:

Bereshit (Genesis) 26:2-6 HaShem appeared to Isaac and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land where I tell you to live. Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham. I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, Because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws." So Isaac stayed in Gerar.

More than two hundred years before Sinai, Abraham is obeying all of HaShem's requirements, commands, decrees and laws. This is the first time we see mitzvot being obeyed when it is not apparent when HaShem revealed His mitzvot. We do not know whether He made a special revelation to Abraham, or whether Abraham was taught by someone else. The Talmud also noticed that Abraham kept the whole Torah:

Yoma 28b Rab said: Our father Abraham kept the whole Torah, as it is said: Because that Abraham hearkened to My voice [kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws]. R. Shimi b. Hiyya said to Rab: Say, perhaps, that this refers to the seven laws? — Surely there was also that of circumcision! Then say that it refers to the seven laws and circumcision [and not to the whole Torah]? — If that were so, why does Scripture say: 'My commandments and My laws'?

Raba or R. Ashi said: Abraham, our father, kept even the law concerning the 'erub of the dishes,' as it is said: 'My Torahs': one being the written Torah, the other the oral Torah.

The Talmud teaches that Avraham kept the entire Torah before it was given to the Jewish People at Sinai. The Midrash says that Isaac kept the laws of shchitah (kosher slaughtering), and Yaakov the laws of Shabbat, before the giving of Torah at Sinai. Truthfully, Isaac and Yaakov kept all of Torah, just as Avraham did.

Why, then, is only Avraham mentioned as having kept all 613 mitzvot? Torah's goal is to create a world of chesed, a world of giving and of kindness. Avraham's defining character trait was the same: loving-kindness (chesed).

Things being so, Avraham had an innate connection to Torah. Avraham, by his nature, was closer, more similar, to the laws of Torah than were the other Patriarchs. Avraham, specifically, was bound to Torah, in a way that left him alike one commanded to keep all of Torah.

HaShem appreciates more a mitzva accomplished by a person commanded to fulfill that mitzva, than when accomplished by someone not so instructed. [The reason HaShem instructs the person that He does, is because He more desires that person's doing it!] Thus, Avraham's observance of Torah was of more significance than its being kept by Isaac or Yaakov. And thus: Avraham, specifically, is mentioned as having kept all of Torah!

Nearly four hundred years before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai, Lot was judging the inhabitants of Sodom for not obeying it:

Bereshit (Genesis) 13:13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the HaShem.

In addition, Avraham and Lot both kept Passover! Notice the unleavened bread in the following passage:

Bereshit (Genesis) 19:2-7 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him And said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

How could Lot say that sodomy was wicked unless he knew that HaShem had commanded the people not to commit sodomy? How could HaShem say that the men of Sodom were sinning unless the standard for sin had already been laid down? It is therefore apparent that the Torah was known before it was given to Moses on Mount Sinai.

Abimelech also knew the Torah before it was given:

Bereshit (Genesis) 20:3-7 But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman." Now Abimelech had not gone near her, so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister,' and didn't she also say, 'He is my brother'? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands." Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die."

HaShem could not accuse Abimelech of sinning unless he knew the Torah which defines sin. He also obviously realized that the sin, in this case, was the sin of sleeping with another man's wife, that is adultery. Abimelech lived more than three hundred years before the Torah was given to Moses.

This same logic also applies to the Amorites:

Bereshit (Genesis) 15:12-16 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. Then HaShem said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."

It would not be fair for HaShem to judge and punish the Amorites for sin unless they had already been told the requirements of the Torah. We see, again, that the Torah was known more than four hundred years before it was given to Moses on Mount Sinai.

After the flood, Noah demonstrated knowledge of Torah, and obedience to it:

Bereshit (Genesis) 8:18-21 So Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons' wives. All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds — everything that moves on the earth — came out of the ark, one kind after another. Then Noah built an altar to HaShem and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. HaShem smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

HaShem will command His people to bring burnt offerings, when He gives His Torah to Moses in about a thousand years, from the days of Noah. Yet, a thousand years before the Torah was given, Noah is obeying it! Notice that Noah even knows about the requirement to offer clean animals. This is another requirement which the Torah will spell out in a thousand years.

A hundred years before the flood and more than a thousand years before the Torah was given, HaShem was grieved because men were greatly disobeying the Torah:

Bereshit (Genesis) 6:5-8 HaShem saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. HaShem was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So HaShem said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth — men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air — for I am grieved that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of HaShem.

Evil and wickedness have no meaning unless HaShem had already revealed His Torah to the people. Thus, we know that the Torah was known more than fifteen hundred years before it was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai.

At the dawn of time, Cain and Abel demonstrated that HaShem had clearly communicated the Torah's sacrificial requirements:

Bereshit (Genesis) 4:1-7 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of HaShem I have brought forth a man." Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to HaShem. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. HaShem looked with favor on Abel and his offering, But on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then HaShem said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

Here we see several parts of the Torah revealed. We see that both Cain and Abel knew that they were to bring offerings to HaShem. We also see that Cain knew that his offering was not correct because HaShem clearly indicated this. We also see that sin is an understood concept in the days of Cain and Abel. Remember the definition of sin:

Yochanan (John) 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

The sacrifice that Abel brought, corresponds with what the Torah will command as the proper sacrifice for Passover! This also gives us a clue as to what was wrong with Cain's sacrifice: It was brought one day too early. Firstfruits are to be brought, beginning the day AFTER Passover.

Here, at the dawn of time, we see that the Torah was being obeyed. The Torah will not be given to Moses for more than two thousand years.

Since there were no Jews before Jacob, then we can see that we have several examples of the Torah being understood and obeyed, before there were any Jews. To put it another way: Cain, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Lot, and Isaac were Gentiles who obeyed the Torah before it was given to God's people on Mount Sinai. If Gentiles obeyed the Torah before it was given on Mount Sinai, how much more should they obey this same Torah, since it has been written?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Frank Adam, May 26, 2009.

In 1952 — 64 [Kenyan independence] the British fought a particularly nasty war with MAU MAU in which they hanged a 1000 — more than in any other colonial disengagement from empire campaign after 1945 if not before.

This is in contrast to the 100+ hanged in the 36-39 Arab revolt in Palestine and none hanged by Israel.

In operations in the field the MAU MAU killed 32 white settlers and another 42 or thereabouts white soldiers and officials, and about 600+ local black police and soldiers.

This in contrast to the usual figure for 11 000 blacks MAU MAU killed by British forces; and that British forces Palestine recovered from the battlefield a 1000+ Arab corpses during the Arab rebellion of 36-39.

I think these figures will be very useful to throw in question form at at any pompous British journalist or diplomat "carrying on" about "disproportionate" use of violence by Israel in Gaza or anywhere else.

Frank Adam

Contact Frank Adam at frrankadam@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, May 26, 2009.
This was posted by Freedom Fighters on the Joshua Pundit website.

Ahh, hope n'change...it's just not working so well.

North Korea carried out a major nuclear test this morning at its Mount Mohyang test site, the site of North Korea's 2006 nuclear test.

Today's test showed a major progression in North Korea's nuclear capabilities.

According to the seismic reports, the explosion created a 4.7 magnitude earthquake on the Richter scale, which means that energy yield is 10 to 20 kilotons, essentially equivalent to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts.

North Korea also test-fired three short-range, ground-to-air missiles later Monday from the same site where it launched a rocket last month that flew over Japan.

President Obama was quick to assume full responsibility for the launch and acknowledged that US non-reaction to North Korea's prior missile launch was a factor in today's nuclear test.

Okay, I may have made that last sentence up. Here's what the president actually said:

President Barack Obama, in a statement, called the action a "matter of grave concern to all nations" and said North Korea was undermining stability in northeast Asia. "It will not find international acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery," he said.

Actually, I think the North Korean regime sees nukes as a definite path to international acceptance, at least in terms of getting what they want. It's gotten them pretty far up to now, and seeing who's in the White House, there's no reason for them to fear any significant consequences in continuing along the same path.

They've blatantly lied and played the West and especially the US for fools for quite some time now, and it's worked pretty well.

And as their expertise and skill in creating nuclear weapons increases, they'll find even more ready customers to buy what they have to sell then they have already, and most of them are not going to be people we're comfortable with having nukes in their hands.

The chief irony in all this is that the current occupant of the White House has made so many pious noises about the dangers of nuclear proliferation,yet he ignores the very real danger posed by the emerging nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea.

As a matter of fact, his chief efforts along this line have been in cutting funds for US missile defense to the bone against the advice of his own secretary of defense.


Almost on cue, Iran's Ahmadinejad decided to take a slap at Obama's uncleched fist and let him and the West know that he rejected the latest Western proposal to "freeze" its nuclear weapons development in exchange for no further sanctions. He also ruled out any talks on Iran's nuclear program with the US or the other major powers, saying that as far as he was concerned it was a dead issue:

Ahmadinejad proposed a debate with Obama at the United Nations in New York "regarding the roots of world problems" but he made clear Tehran would not bow to pressure on the nuclear issue.

"Our talks (with major powers) will only be in the framework of cooperation for managing global issues and nothing else. We have clearly announced this," Ahmadinejad said.

"The nuclear issue is a finished issue for us," he told a news conference. "From now on we will continue our path in the framework of the (U.N. nuclear watchdog) agency."

Ahmadinejad, of course is speaking for the Ayatollah Khamanei, who will continue to call the shots in Iran no matter who wins Iran's June 'election'.

I can't help but wonder if Kim Jong-Il and Ahmadinejad deliberately set this up between them,just for giggles.

In reality, aside from horsetrading nuclear and missile technology, Iran and North Korea have learned from each other's experience.

The US, especially with Obama in the White House is unlikely to do anything meaningful to stop them from obtaining nuclear weapons, and will simply keep meaniongless diplo-speak initiatives churning until it's simply too late to do anything.

Obama's meaningless statements about revisiting Iran's nuclear weapons program in six months or so after talking with Israel's Benyamin Netanyahu and hearing his concerns about an existential threat to an ally are a prime example.

When serious consequences arise from this, I have no doubt that the president will make suitable remarks in his signature baritone, while swinging his head back and forth like a metronome to scan his stereo teleprompters.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, May 26, 2009.

This was posted by Freedom Fighters on the Joshua Pundit website.


Not only does our government refuse to admit that we're in a war with Islamism, they actually promote it as official policy.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has the facts on how the US State Department is working to promote Islamism in America, under the guise of 'Muslim outreach'.

With the United States battling Islamist extremists, making America's case to Muslims around the world has never been more of a priority for policymakers. Unfortunately, the State Department continues to take a counterproductive approach: serving as a veritable infomercial promoting Islamist organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) while giving the back of the hand to the very anti-jihadist Muslims that Washington should be cultivating. The latest example is a State Department booklet issued in March titled "Being Muslim in America."

Do a search on JoshuaPundit for any one of these organizations, and you will find that they are mainly wahabi and Muslim Brotherhood Islamist fronts, mostly Saudi funded.

They are organs of the so-called 'stealth jihad' that seeks to radicalize American Muslims while pushing for sharia law and the ultimate Islamization of the country.

The booklet in question, entitled "Muslim In America" is designed for US Diplomatic personnel to hand out to Muslims overseas ostensibly to show that the US is a Muslim friendly country, sensitive to Muslim values. Instead, it touts the values of Islamists like the ones mentioned above:

Unfortunately, the substance of the booklet is so flawed that it could undermine the struggle against this form of radicalism. It perpetuates the mythology that American Muslims are united in the belief that law enforcement and the public are willing to flout innocent Muslims' civil rights post-September 11, describing American Muslim reactions to the attacks as follows:

"A new, truly American Islam is emerging, shaped by American freedoms, but also by the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks — planned and executed by non-Americans — [which] raised suspicions among other Americans whose immediate responses, racial profiling among them, triggered in return a measure of Muslim-American alienation."


"Sadly, suspicions of this kind are not uncommon — in the United States or in other nations — during wartime or when outside attack is feared. But 2008 is not 2002, when fears and suspicions were at their height. Context is also important: Every significant immigrant group has in the United States faced, and overcame, a degree of discrimination and resentment."

This is an extremely tendentious, even intellectually dishonest, description of September 11 and its aftermath. From reading it, one would have no idea that there have been numerous convictions and guilty pleas on terrorism-related charges since September 11 that involved Muslims living in the United States, including terrorist plots to attack the military base at Ft. Dix, N.J., to create a terrorist training camp in Bly, Oregon and to attack U.S. military and Jewish targets in California.

Also omitted from the booklet is the fact that organizations like CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) were listed by the government as unindicted co-conspirators in the federal government's prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) — in which the Justice Department won convictions of five former HLF officials for providing money to the terrorist organization Hamas. But from reading this passage in "Being Muslim in America," one would get the impression that public concern about Islamist terror has no basis in reality and is merely the result of backward Americans' "discrimination and resentment."

One picture on page 15 of the booklet shows people marching under a CAIR banner and has a caption reading: "Muslims march to support volunteerism." The identical picture appeared at the top of CAIR's website when IPT News accessed it May 15.

In reality, CAIR was created as a front for Hamas and it has defended radical Islamists since 1994. See the IPT dossier on CAIR here.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad typifies this see-no-evil attitude toward jihadist terror. He has repeatedly defended the HLF. At a May 2003 forum at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, an audience member commented that the Justice Department has released reams of information showing that the HLF and another charity whose assets were frozen "have direct connections and in fact their leadership was the leadership of al Qaeda and Hamas." Awad replied: "I am sure if we...put under the microscope, every major civic or political organization in this country, including the Red Cross, you will see that some dollars went here and there in some country, but you don't shut down the entire operation of the Red Cross."

CAIR officials dismissed the verdict of 12 jurors in HLF's Hamas-financing trial as "based more on fear-mongering than on the facts" and predicted it would be overturned on appeal.

Awad has steadfastly defended Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) supporter Sami Al-Arian, despite evidence that Al-Arian served on the PIJ governing board. Al-Arian is fighting a criminal contempt charge, triggered by his refusal to testify before a federal grand jury investigating terror financing in Virginia despite a grant of immunity. He claims his 2006 plea agreement to conspiring to provide goods and services to the PIJ absolved him of any future testimony, be it voluntary or compelled by subpoena. The plea agreement itself contains no such language. U.S. District Judge James S. Moody blasted Al-Arian as a "master manipulator" at his sentencing in the PIJ support case, saying Al-Arian lied to the public about his PIJ support.

Yet, during an August 2008 forum on the contempt case, Awad argued it was motivated by bigotry against Muslims:

"And I believe he's being punished for this, belonging to a minority — Palestinian, Arab, Muslim in America is not like the best thing to be in America today. So he's being the victim of this malicious misunderstanding in this midst of increased Islamophobia in America."

The message being sent overseas, of course is that America is a willing host to the parasitical growth of Islamism — not the message that Muslims are welcome in America if they adhere to our norms.

In a triumphalist honor-shame culture like Islam, that message is extremely dangerous and roughly equivalent to hanging a prominent sign in front of your house detailing the valuables inside and the hours the house is empty.

The book makes absolutely no mention of how moderate Muslims practice their faith while still abiding by our laws and traditions, and cites no organizations that embrace that viewpoint. Every example is one of the Muslim Brotherhood wahabi spinoffs cited above.

What this does, of course is to reinforce the message of weakness and appeasement coming out of the White House. I don't doubt that this message is being received by both our enemies and our friends quite clearly.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kauman, May 26, 2009.

The editor of the Palm Beach Post, May 17, 2009, had the gall to give several orders, via Barack Obama, to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu:

... "Barack Obama, who enjoys high approval ratings, must tell Mr. Netanyahu that Netanyahu's political weakness (the editor's estimation) is just one of the "excuses" Obama will reject for Netanyahu not attempting to negotiate a political deal with the Palestinians."
My unpublished (naturally) Letter to the Editor is below.

"As to Barack Obama Demanding "Excuses" from the Sovereign Nation of Israel"
By Jerome S. Kaufman

The Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, does not have to give Barack Obama any "excuses" for not immediately making a so-called "peace" deal with the Palestinian Arabs nor for doing anything else that he and the people of Israel think is not in their best interests, especially when their very survival is at stake.

Mr. Netanyahu does not "owe" Mr. Obama another chance to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. Achmadinejad constantly threatens a nuclear attack to eliminate the Jews and the State of Israel. The Jews and the entire world, that ignored Hitler's Mein Kampf, better take him at his word.

Mr. Obama's naive approach and sweet talk to the Arab nations, the United Nations, the powerless European Union and the vague promises of the Russians and the Chinese with diametrically opposed objectives to ours, will result in exactly nothing. The farce of unsuccessful nuclear negotiations in North Korea is simply repeating itself.

Our "strengthening" Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the expense of Hamas is another farce. Hamas overwhelmingly defeated Abbas in the elections in Gaza and turned it into a launching pad for thousands of rockets into the heart of Israel. Furthermore, if open elections were held today, Hamas would take over the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and do exactly the same thing, five minutes from the heart of Israel.

As to the editor's criticism of the Israeli settlements which, by the way, are built only on land that was supposed to have been the Jewish homeland in the first place — since the League of Nations Mandate of 1917: There were no settlements when Israel was founded on a miniscule small strip of land along the Mediterranean coast in 1948. Nevertheless, the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon immediately waged all-out war to eliminate that tiny strip. Attempted elimination of the settlements with near 300,000 Israelis living productive lives, is just another Arab Trojan horse.

Perhaps the editor should be telling Obama he should be obtaining "excuses" from Ahmadinejad of Iran and Kim Jong-ll of North Korea or the Russians and the Chinese instead of attempting to weaken the only democracy and true ally we have in the entire Middle East.

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org).

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, May 26, 2009.

Some will say President Obama never left, despite his seemingly temporary adopting the Christian faith useful in Chicago politics.

It appears that President Obama, in his public re-connection to Islam or, as he calls it, "outreach" can be construed to fulfill the pledge of Islamic "Jihadists" (warriors for Islam) to turn all America over to the Islamic faith.

When astronauts or astrophysicists study the cosmos, looking for invisible black holes which cannot be seen, even with the most powerful telescopes, they look for other clues. Those clues are more solid objects, like stars, planets — even light being drawn into this black hole by its irresistible gravitational forces. The behavior of these solid objects can be studied, especially when they behave erratically.

If one looks, even casually, at the people (objects) who Obama has selected to be drawn into his force field, those are the clues which can tell you there is a seemingly "black hole" in the Washington cosmos. (I'm not speaking of personal coloring.)

For example: Look at the solid crowd of Arabists swirling around Obama, leaving little doubt Obama is the center of a pro-Islamic — anti-Israel/Jewish vortex. Granted, the charismatic Obama, with his charming smile and his come-hither speeches that flow like warm chocolate, makes it hard to see his invisible gravitational force. His magnetic force is so strong that, even when the light of truth manages to escape, most of the people observing still ignore the reality of the danger he poses. We delude ourselves that his forceful, smooth speeches are solutions — rather than the emptiness they offer.

If you have any doubt that Obama has returned to the Muslim Islamic faith of his father, look at what he doing as he re-connects with some of the most evil terrorist Islamic, anti-America/anti-Israel nations on the Planet Earth. But first, he needed to select a cabal of Arabists to do his bidding. Some are called appointees, while others are called advisors but all are Arabists and virulently anti-Israel — even (perhaps especially) the Jews among them.

We observe such people as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker III, Baker's former Jew-boys: Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller, Daniel Kurtzer with Martin Indyk circling the group.

We watch Susan Rice, appointed to the post of America's ambassador to the United Nations, well-known for her earlier recommendations to use force against Israel.

Obama made General James Jones his National Security Advisor (who led Melanie Phillips to use the old phrase: "Obama prepares to throw Israel under the bus". (What does that mean as a practical matter? Is Obama to be Israel's High Executioner?)

Rahm Emanuel is Obama's Chief of Staff (an Israeli whose father fought in Israel's 1948 War of Independence) but Rahm is now very anti-Israel — or at the very least pro-Arab adopting Obama's doctrine.

In his run for President, Obama had Syrian-born Tony Rezko assisting his campaign funding but, he is temporarily out-of-the-loop and sitting in prison for financial misdemeanors. We have yet to hear about the financial assistance to Obama in full through the Justice Department.

All had a well-defined history of being pro-Muslim Arabs and virulently against the Jewish State. Needless, to say, the U.S. State Department has acquired the confirmed reputations of being the most dedicated anti-Israel "Shadow Government" since Israel was partitioned over the State Department's objections.

One might say the U.S. State Department is like another satellite nation of the Muslim block of 57 Muslim countries (only 22 of which are also Arab).

Note! I recommend that you obtain the May issue of THE OUTPOST by AFSI (Americans For a Safe Israel) to get a more complete description of President Obama's inner circle.

One might ask the questions:

Is Obama a selected plant to alter America's democracy and its support for an ally who actually fights Islamic Terror?

Is President Obama supposed to alter the U.S. Constitution to accommodate Koranic Shari'a Laws as practiced by the Saudi Wahhabism or the Taliban or al Qaeda, 'et al'?

Is it Obama who is the invisible "Black Hole" in the Washington cosmos or is he merely a "useful idiot", guided by the "Shadow Government" which cannot yet declare themselves to the public lest they are swept out of power by the citizenry, reclaiming their constitutional rights as in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Under Obama and his scurrilous cabal, Americans are losing their precious freedoms daily.


Something else has just come up. In the Chicago Tribune of May 24th, there's a column by Josh Meyer, entitled "FBI Role In Fighting Terrorism To Expand". If the FBI is actually allowed to fight Terrorism, so much the better. However, in the past the FBI was under excessive influence from the Arabist State Department. Woe unto the FBI agent who began to seriously track radical "sleeper" Muslim Terrorists in the U.S.

If they didn't back off, they were soon assigned a post to nowhere Nebraska.

Clearly, the CIA is to be reduced in purpose and efficiency, particularly when it comes to harshly dealing with the Arab-Muslim Terrorists who plan to target American interests and America herself.

Why is President Obama erecting a shield for Global Islamic Terrorism while claiming he is going to do a better job than the CIA?

Will the sleeper Islamic cells in the U.S. and suspicious Muslim "Jihadists" be mostly un-investigated under Obama's ideology of reaching out to Muslim "Jihadists" nations well known as Terrorists and enemies of the U.S. (because they so proclaim themselves to be).

Obama appointed Leon Panetta as Director of the CIA. Is he supposed to now roll over and play dumb to the Obama FBI ploy? Does Obama and his crowd of Arabist consider the CIA an impediment and, therefore, expendable?

Is the "New" FBI to be a covert policeman — not so much against Muslim Terrorists but, as a friendly organization to protect Muslims in America? That would mean suppressing investigations with the State Department and Obama's Arabist cabal overseeing the program. That would also mean threatening any TV or radio news channel, any newspaper, any commentator who speaks out against Muslim extremism to include Obama's frequent apologies for America so Muslim Arab "Jihadists" will 'like' and forgive us white Judeo-Christian folks.

IF the 'sleeper' Muslims allowed into the U.S. by the Arabist State Department happens to blow up an American city or release bio-agents, who will Obama then blame?

Will he fall back on the age old excuse for government failure and to re-direct the anger of the American people against his passive appeasement doctrine and blame the Jews of Israel — and America?

He has put Israel into the position of either attacking Iran (which Obama refuses to do) or waiting for a nuclear explosion over Tel Aviv. Then he could absolve himself of blame as the Muslim Islamists continue their attack against non-Muslim governments all over the world, including and especially America.

So, President Obama, who are you really?

Is it merely bad judgement, naiveté, a fellow traveler of Islamic ideology or are you a 'sleeper' yourself, now come awake as the infamous Manchurian Candidate in a movie by the same name?

Let us hope this speculation is nothing more than that!

Perhaps the reality that Muslim "Jihadists" cannot be appeased, actually grow stronger if imprisoned where they convert other inmates to Islam and Terrorism. Will Obama abandon his father's Islamic faith and start protecting America and her Judeo-Christian heritage?

This below is entitled "Obama Prepares To Throw Israel Under The Bus" and was written by Melanie Phillips. It appeared May 6, 2009 in The Spectator www.Spectator.Co.Uk.


As predicted here repeatedly — Obama is attempting to throw Israel under the Islamist bus, and he's getting American Jews to do his dirty work for him. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly told the Israel lobbying group AIPAC on Sunday that efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians. General James Jones, National Security Adviser to Obama, reportedly told a European foreign minister a week ago that unlike the Bush administration, Obama will be 'forceful' with Israel. Ha'aretz reports:

Jones is quoted in the telegram as saying that the United States, European Union and moderate Arab states must redefine 'a satisfactory endgame solution.' The U.S. national security adviser did not mention Israel as party to these consultations.

Of course not. If you are going to throw a country under the bus, you don't invite it to discuss the manner of its destruction with the assassins who are co-ordinating the crime. As I said here months ago, the appointment of Jones and the elevation of his post of National Security Adviser at the expense of the Secretary of State was all part of the strategy to centralise power in the hands of those who want to do Israel harm.

Yesterday Vice-President Joe Biden and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry turned the thumbscrews tighter, telling Israel to stop building more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement.

This is all not only evil but exceptionally stupid. The idea that a Palestine state will help build a coalition against Iran is demonstrably absurd. The Arab states are beside themselves with anxiety about Iran. They want it to be attacked and its nuclear programme stopped. They are desperately fearful that the Obama administration might have decided that it can live with a nuclear Iran.

The idea that if a Palestine state comes into being it will be easier to handle Iran is the opposite of the case: a Palestine state will be Iran, in the sense that it will be run by Hamas as a proxy for the Islamic Republic. The idea that a Palestine state will not compromise Israel's security is ludicrous.

It is of course, by any sane standard, quite fantastic that America is behaving as if it is Israel which is holding up a peace settlement when Israel has made concession after concession — giving up Sinai, giving up Gaza, offering all the territories to the Arabs in return for peace in 1967, offering more than 90 per cent of them ditto in 2000, ditto again to Mahmoud Abbas in the past year — only to be attacked in return by a Palestinian terrorist entity, backed in its continued aggression, let us not forget, by the countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has made no concessions at all and is not being pressured to do so.

It is not the aggressor here but the victim of aggression that America is now choosing to beat up. In any sane world, one might think the Americans would be piling the pressure on the Palestinians to renounce their genocidal ambitions against Israel, to stop teaching and training their children to hate and kill Jews, to adhere to the primary requirement in the Road Map that they must dismantle their infrastructure of violence as the first step in the peace process; one might think, indeed, that they would view Mahmoud Abbas's repeated statements that the Palestinians will never accept Israel as a Jewish state to be the main impediment to peace.

But no. The repeated professions that America will never jeopardise Israel's security are stomach churning when Obama is actually blaming Israel for measures it has taken to safeguard its security — the settlements were always first and foremost a security measure, and the travel restrictions are there solely to prevent more Israelis being murdered — and trying to force it to abandon them. Today comes further news that Obama will also try to force Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would force it to dismantle its nuclear arsenal — which it only has as a last ditch insurance against the attempt to annihilate it to which more than a billion Arabs and Muslims remain pledged.

Of course Obama doesn't care that Hamas would run any Palestinian state. Of course he doesn't care that Israel would be unable to defend itself against such a terrorist state. Because he regards Israel as at best totally expendable, and at worst as a running sore on the world's body politic that has to be purged altogether (see this bleak assessment by Sultan Knish). His administration is proceeding on the entirely false analysis that a state of Palestine is the solution to the Middle East impasse and the route to peace in the region. What that state will look like or do is something to which at best the administration's collective mind is shut and at worst makes it a potential cynical accomplice to the unconscionable. So Israel is to be forced out of the West Bank. Far from building a coalition against Iran, Obama is thus doing Iran's work for it.

None of this, however, should come as the slightest surprise to anyone who paid any attention to Obama's background, associations and friendships before he became President and to the cabal of Israel-bashers, appeasers and Jew-haters he appointed to his administration, with a few useful idiots thrown in for plausible deniability.

Almost eighty per cent of American Jews voted for Obama despite the clear and present danger he posed to Israel. They did so because their liberal self-image was and is more important to them than the Jewish state whose existence and security cannot be allowed to jeopardise their standing with America's elite.

But the ordinary American people are a different matter. They do value and support Israel. They do understand that if Israel is thrown under that bus, the west is next. And it is they to whom Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu must now appeal, over the heads of the politicians and the media and America's Jews and everyone else. He must tell the American people the terrible truth, that America is now run by a man who is intent on sacrificing Israel for a reckless and amoral political strategy which will put America and the rest of the free world at risk.

This is shaping up to be the biggest crisis in relations between Israel and America since the foundation of Israel six decades ago. Those who hate Israel and the Jews will be gloating. This after all is precisely what they hoped Obama would do. To any decent person looking on aghast, this is where the moral sickness of the west reaches the critical care ward.

* An earlier version of this post linked to a story in the Jerusalem Post which said an AIPAC delegation to Congress was asking it to lobby for a two-state solution. This story appears to have been wrong.

** Further update: It now appears from this story and this that the AIPAC position may be more ambiguous still.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 26, 2009.


PM Netanyahu withheld money from the P.A., lest it finance terrorism against Israel. He had criticized his predecessor for releasing funds to the P.A..

Tony Blair, Quartet envoy, appealed to Netanyahu. Next we know, Netanyahu released about $13 million to Gaza banks, to save the Gaza banking system. His excuse is that it isn't much and it is sales tax funds that Israel collects for the P.A.
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/7).

Netanyahu's hopes to build up the P.A. economy, to under-gird peace efforts.

His alternative is to let the Gaza banking system collapse, so as to weaken an unrelenting enemy with whom peace cannot be made. He would be criticized by appeasement-minded Westerners, but they always criticize Israel. Meanwhile, Hamas would have less means for making war. Arabs might move away faster. If enough do, peace becomes likelier.

For the danger of financing the P.A.:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d14-Terrorist-forces-of-Hamas-and-Palestinian-Authority-to-combine


Bar-Ilan sociology Prof. Ornha Sasson-Levy claimed on al-Jazeera TV that Israeli troops who fought in Gaza boast on their tee-shirts of killing pregnant women.

They troops were not seen in Gaza, or before combat, or anywhere, wearing them. Prof. Sasson-Levy did not interview Gaza veterans to find out whether they wore them and what it means to them.

What is known is that Arabs made them. Perhaps they set the IDF up for the smear. Probably those tee-shirts are teenaged-soldiers' idea of humor. The professor used the existence of such shirts as an excuse to take it seriously. She is in the habit of smearing the IDF (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/7).


Israeli leftists criticize their ideological foes, but when their critics debunk then, the leftists cry "McCarthyism." Actually, the accusation is McCarthyism. It is an attempt to squelch discussion, by moral intimidation (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/7).


Israel's Pres. Peres chastised Ban for inviting Iran's Pres. Ahmadinejad to speak on human rights, for his speech promoted genocide. Ban said he did not realize Ahmadinejad would speak like that (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/7). Ahmadinejad often speaks like that. How could Ban be surprised?


An Israeli Likud politician, Moshe Feiglin, sentimentally urged PM Netanyahu to demand the release of Jonathan Pollard, even if he can't get other agreements with Pres. Obama, due to conflicting national interests.

I agree with his appeal to Netanyahu, but not with his notion of "national interest." He confuses national interest with national policy. Obama's policy is to appease Islam. That would destroy our ally, Israel, facilitate jihad, and get U.S. decimated by nuclear weapons. That is not in the American national interest. U.S. policy often is not. Our leaders are not particularly knowledgeable or thoughtful, if they even are experienced.

The U.S. and Israel have the same national interest — survival from jihad. Mr. Feiglin unwittingly plays into the hands of those who accuse U.S. Jews of dual loyalty. There cannot be dual loyalty when both countries have the same national interest.


My dinner guest is a fine person. Like most educated people, he specializes in his vocation and relies upon the usual media for other information. Not on books and not on alternative media. He accepts established concepts of government.

Among those general concepts are that governments advance the national interests of their country and people. But they often don't. Rulers tend to impoverish their people for egotism or popularity from over-spending. They misunderstand issues or warp them via ideology or political advantage. The fall of empires and regimes tells that story over and over. Nevertheless, people retain the misconception that national interest drives policy makers.

The media usually promotes publishers' bias. For a few decades, we Americans enjoyed a relatively objective press. That was decades ago. The European press is more tendentious and some of it and of Israel's is not independent.

My guest's newspaper, the NY Times, presents an unfairly anti-Zionist slant, all the while professing to care about Israel. It accepts false Arab propaganda, disguises U.S. policy's deceitful motives and methods, and depicts Israeli policy as too nationalist, when it isn't, and smears the Jewish nationalist view as extremist without defining it. Readers are misled without being aware of it.

When I referred to Israel's governments as anti-Zionist and in some ways antisemitic, my guest's face went through contortions of doubt and wondering about my mental balance. He was shocked.

He was shocked, because he lacks background. I gave him some proof. Then I advised him to study my couple of hundred posted articles for background and for insight into facts and conclusions he never dreamed of.

I am thankful that the Examiner is tolerant of different approaches. If it is difficult to be a dissident, it is even more difficult for a non-dissident to realize when a dissident is rational and the Establishment is not. People need to access diverse sources and maintain an open but skeptical mind. Truth is more elusive than they thought.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, May 25, 2009.

The Making of Modern Israel: 1948-1967 (Hardcover)
by Leslie Stein (Author)
Publisher: Polity (April 8, 2009)
ISBN-10: 074564466X
ISBN-10: 074564466X
ISBN-13: 978-0745644660  

ON MAY 14, 1948 the State of Israel was declared, announced by David Ben-Gurion at a small gathering that assembled in the main hall of the Tel Aviv Art Museum. Within a time frame of only nineteen years, culminating in the Six-Day War, Israel fought three separate wars. But within its first four years, thanks to mass immigration, its population doubled. Furthermore, Israel had been confronted with acute economic difficulties, intra Jewish ethnic tensions, a problematic Arab minority and a secular-religious divide. Apart from defence issues, Israel faced a generally hostile or, at best, indifferent international community rendering it hard pressed in securing great power patronage or even official sympathy and understanding. Based on a wide range of sources, both in Hebrew and English, this book contains a judicious synthesis of the received literature to yield the general reader and student alike a reliable, balanced, and novel account of Israels fateful and turbulent infancy.

The book covers all the salient aspects of Israel's early history as frankly and as honestly as possible. In the process, it provides a strong antidote to the advocacy of the dismantling of Israel. Elan Pappe's thesis of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is adequately debunked and there generally is a wealth of material to assist those combating anti-Zionism.

Table of Contents

Chapter One: The War of Independence.
Chapter Two: Arab Refugees.
Chapter Three: The Ingathering of the Exiles.
Chapter Four: Early Social, Political and Economic Developments.
Chapter Five: The Scourge of Arab Infiltration.
Chapter Six: Operation Kadesh: The Sinai Campaign.
Chapter Seven: Interlude Between Wars.
Chapter Eight: The Lead Up To The Six Day War.
Chapter Nine: The Six Day War and Its Aftermath.
Glossary. Appendix

Editorial Reviews

"The deeper into the twenty-first century we get the less we know about the twentieth. This ignorance has so distorted even educated people's grasp of the conflict between Israel and its Palestinian and other Arab neighbours that public discussion of it routinely descends into half-bias, half drivel. Leslie Stein's elegant and learned book is, first of all, truthful, a rare enough quality in this research area. Beyond that, it is well written and argumentative in the sense that his topic requires. The years 1948-1967 constitute the crucible of discord. Without a clear understand of these two decades, which this volume so amply provides, the citizen is in the desert with only mirages to (mis)lead him or her."
Martin Peretz, Editor-In-Chief of The New Republic.

"With great verve and a robust appreciation for the Zionist achievement, Leslie Stein accurately captures the drama, excitement and danger of the fledgling Jewish state's first two decades, thus putting its current tribulations in perspective.
Daniel Pipes, Director of The Middle East Forum (Pennsylvania) and Taube/Diller distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

"The Making of Modern Israel is an invaluable contribution to our understanding of one of history's most extraordinary and inspiring stories. Leslie Stein is to be commended for authoring what is certain to become an indispensible resource for scholars, decision-makers, and students."
Michael Oren, Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center, Jerusalem and author of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East.

"Continuing his masterful previous history of Israel before statehood, Leslie Stein tells the complicated story of the state's first nineteen years in this highly readable, admirably concise and eminently fair-minded account. Threading his way deftly through controversial minefields with sure footing, Stein manages to convey the best up-to-date scholarship with unusual clarity. This book is strongly recommended for the general reader and as an excellent introductory text for the classroom."
Alan Dowty, Emeritus Professor of University of Notre Dame and author of Israel/Palestine.

"Anyone who wants to find the way through the internal politics and external wars that accompanied Israel in its early and formative years can rely on Professor Stein. He gives it straight. This ought to become a standard work on the emergence of Israel to the place it holds on the international scene."
David Pryce-Jones, former senior editor of National Review, former literary editor of the Financial Times and of the Spectator and author of The Closed Circle.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 25, 2009.


At JFK Airport terminal 4, 4th floor, at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 27, to protest against dangerous U.S. demands of Israel. Examples: Israel should stop Jews from building in Judea-Samaria and turn the area over to the Arabs.

The conference arguments in sum: The Land of must not be negotiated away. With the Jewish people, it has an unbreakable bond. It never was the basis for another state. No other nation until 1948 claimed it as their land. It is mistaken to consider it "Palestinian."
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/20). The tenor of the arguments are religious-Zionist.

Why don't they ask the U.S. government to justify its demands? Why does the State Dept. expect a PLO state to make peace, when the PLO says it wants to take over Israel?

Why don't they question the logic of clearing half a million Jews from Judea-Samaria and part of Jerusalem, to make room for an exclusively Arab state, but not clear out the million Arabs from the rest of Israel, which is a Jewish state?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Alan Peters, May 25, 2009.

From 1941 until 1979, Iran was ruled by a constitutional monarchy under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran's Shah (king). Although Iran, also called Persia, was the world's oldest empire, dating back 2,500 years, by 1900 it was floundering.

Bandits dominated the land; literacy was one percent; and women, under archaic Islamic dictates (jihadist insist on trying to impose on us today), had no rights.

The Shah changed all this. Primarily by using oil-generated wealth, he modernized the nation. He built rural roads, postal services, libraries, and electrical installations.

He constructed dams to irrigate Iran's arid land, making the country 90-percent self-sufficient in food production.

He established colleges and universities, and at his own expense, set up an educational foundation to train students for Iran's future.

To encourage independent cultivation, the Shah donated 500,000 Crown acres to 25,000 farmers. In 1978, his last full year in power, the average Iranian earned $2,540, compared to only $160 some 25 years earlier.

Iran had full employment, requiring foreign workers. (These allowed creation of a much wider job market than could have been grown by solely using domestic labor, and foreigners were replaced as over a million job needs per year by graduating students came to the fore).

The national currency was stable for 15 years, inspiring French economist André Piettre to call Iran a country of "growth without inflation.

" Although Iran was the world's second largest oil exporter, the Shah planned construction of 18 peaceful nuclear power plants. He built an Olympic sports complex and applied to host the 1988 Olympics (an honor eventually assigned to Seoul), an achievement unthinkable for other Middle East nations.

Long regarded as an U.S. ally, the Shah was pro-Western and anti-communist, and he was aware that he posed the main barrier to Soviet ambitions in the Middle East. As distinguished foreign-affairs analyst Hilaire du Berrier noted: "He determined to make Iran ... capable of blocking a Russian advance until the West should realize to what extent her own interests were threatened and come to his aid....

It necessitated an army of 250,000 men." The Shah's air force ranked among the world's five best. A voice for stability within the Middle East itself, he favored peace with Israel and supplied the beleaguered state with oil.

On the home front, the Shah protected minorities and permitted non-Muslims to practice their faiths. "All faith," he wrote, "imposes respect upon the beholder."

The Shah also brought Iran into the 20th century by granting women equal rights. This was not to accommodate feminism, but to end archaic brutalization.

Yet, at the height of Iran's prosperity, the Shah suddenly became the target of an ignoble campaign led by U.S. and British foreign policy makers. Bolstered by slander in the Western press, these forces, along with Soviet-inspired communist insurgents, and mullahs opposing the Shah's progressiveness, combined to face him with overwhelming opposition.

In three years he went from vibrant monarch to exile (on January 16, 1979), and ultimately death, while Iran fell to Ayatollah Khomeini's terror.

Thanks to Jimmy Carter, we went from a friendly Iran to what it is today — a threat to the West.

Shah in uniform

Ayatollah Khomeini on the left

From Iran: Carter's Habitat For Inhumanity, Investor's Business Daily (with AntiMullah editorial comments)

In the name of human rights, Jimmy Carter gave rise to one of the worst rights violators in history — the Ayatollah Khomeini. And now Khomeini's successor is preparing for nuclear war with Israel and the West.

A Profile In Incompetence

When President Carter took office in 1977, the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a staunch American ally, a bulwark in our standoff with the Soviet Union, thwarting the dream held since the time of the czars of pushing south toward the warm waters of the appropriately named Persian Gulf.

Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators.

This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The Shah was one of his first targets.

As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners.

[Alan Note: Actual figure from Amnesty International was closer to 2,400 — mostly Tudeh Communists and Soviet supporting Marxist-Islamists.]

He chastised the Shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.

The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the Shah in February 1979, many of these 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.

According to The Real Jimmy Carter, a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Khomeini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years."

The mullahs hated the Shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iran society.

[Alan Note: recently one of the pro-Mossadegh and Tudeh (Communist) party Iranian leaders openly stated: "we were not attacking the Shah for freedoms for the people but for freedom for us to import and install our foreign (Soviet) philosophies without fear and impediment.]

Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could pick up Western television.

Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and jihadists to follow.

And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed that November and 52 Americans taken hostage for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind. On Nov. 4, 1979, some 400 Khomeini followers broke down the door of the embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound and the Americans inside.

The hostage takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Carter and the slogan: "America cannot do a damn thing."

[Alan Note: unpublicized intelligence at the time indicated that the hostage taking was arranged by Jimmuh the idiot Carter with Khomeini aides, like Yazdi, Bani-Sadr and Ghotbzadeh, who were U.S. aligned and attached to Khomeini by Carter, to ensure his re-election, when he (Carter) conveniently arrangd their release just before voting took place. Ronald Reagan found out about it, blocked the plot and arranged the release AFTER the election.]

Indeed, America under Carter wouldn't do much. At least not until the 154th day of the crisis, when Carter, finally awakening to the seizure of U.S. diplomats and citizens on what was legally American soil, broke off diplomatic relations and began planning economic sanctions.

When Carter got around to hinting about the use of military force, Khomeini offered this mocking response: "He is beating on an empty drum. Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him." Carter did actually try a military response of sorts. But like every other major policy action of his, he bungled it.

The incompetence of his administration would be seen in the wreckage in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines.

[Alan note: information obtained from post-Shah Iranian military and inteligence sources and more evidence from Americans, who were involved or on scene, all point to the so-called hostage rescue in fact being a failed arms delivery to Afghanistan, ("Green Belt" to contain Soviets project) where the Soviets shot and disabled one of the C130's bringing in weapons. Leaving Carter to either declare war on the Soviets for this act of war or pretend it was something else. Yes, a failed hostage rescue, which was still not operational after something was cobbled together by a cabal of U.S. intelligence and military groups, which all wanted a part in the operation. But whose witches brew was still not fully cooked].

Among the core group of hostage takers and planners of the attack on our embassy was 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who learned firsthand the weakness and incompetence of Carter's foreign policy, one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are now attempting to resurrect.

According to then-Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ahmadinejad was among the hostage takers and the liaison between them and then prominent Tehran preacher Ali Khameini, later to become supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.

The Shah was forced into exile and on the run from Morocco to Egypt, the Bahamas, Mexico and finally Panama.

In July 1979, Vice President Walter Mondale and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter they had changed their minds about offering the Shah permanent asylum. Carter's spiteful response was: "F*** the Shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe."

In October 1979, the Shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes.

If the Shah had remained in power, it isn't likely the Iraq-Iran War, with upward of a million casualties on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place.

[Alan Note: Iraq had tried once before, in the time of the Shah, to invade Iran over the dispute of the Shatt-Al Arab river between the two countries. This lasted all of four days before Saddam Hussein's forces were driven out with their tails between their legs. Nothing like the eight years under Carter's Khomeini.]

Nor is it likely there would have been a Desert Storm, fought after Hussein invaded Kuwait to strengthen his strategic position. That led to bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamofascist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan.

Carter's Khomeini introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.

It was Carter's Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon.

And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. troops in their Beirut barracks in 1983.

The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new arms-control treaty.

[Alan Note: the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office sent some 200 observers to monitor the Carter-Reagan election to note whether the Soviets would try to spend enough money to "buy" the election for their "mole" Jimmuh Carter.]

And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban.

As Hayward observes, the fall of Iran, hastened by Jimmy Carter, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11."

Writer Christopher Hitchens recalls a discussion he had with Eugene McCarthy, a Democrat and former candidate for that party's presidential nomination, where McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Carter in 1980.

The reason? Carter had "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad (including the Soviets). He was quite simply the worst president we ever had."

Quite simply, we concur. Though he is the best SOVIET president America ever elected!

[Alan Note: And Carter's liberal, to the point of Communist/Socialist leanings, can be seen in his staunch ties and support of Cuba's Castro, Venezuela's Chavez, other South American leftist governments and his anti-America diatribe attacks on anything that confronts the terrorism he stupidly created. He has a share in all the blood, still on his hands, of all innocents killed by those he actively helped put in place.]

This is from the March 16, 2008 http://Anti-Mullah.com site and can be found at
http://alanpetersworld.blogspot.com/2008/03/ jimmah-idiot-carter-architect-of-our.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Peck, May 25, 2009.

As Jay Leno says on his late night show, "Folks we're living in tough times" However, that doesn't seem to be the case if you're a member of the press, and a Muslim, wanting to travel to our shores from any one of a dozen countries to learn how to do ''creative broadcasting programming."

As many of you know, I have, for the past twenty years hosted a television show, "Wow it's Arlene Peck," which is mostly a celebrity interview show. Recently, the city fathers of Los Angeles, in their infinite wisdom, decided to cancel Public Access. And I, along with others, have been meeting with the L.A. City Council to try to get them to see what a mistake this would be and to have them reconsider their decision.

As a result, I happened to be in the office of the woman who has been working with me on this campaign, and who produces a successful Public Access program, "Disclosure", where she tackles issues and brings them to the attention of the public.

While there, I glanced down on her desk and saw a letter from the International Visitors Council of Los Angeles. Its contents caused me to do a double-take. It was from Kim Ngoc Le who is the Senior Program Officer of the International Visitors Council of Los Angeles, thanking this producer for "taking time out of (her) schedule to host our delegation of broadcasting experts from North Africa and the Near East."

Apparently the nine lucky 'honored guests' were from such countries and television stations as Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel, GAZA, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.

And, according to Ms Ngoc Le, "These distinguished visitors have been nominated by our Department of State to travel to the U.S. to learn from their American counterparts about creative broadcast programming. The IVCLA is pleased to entertain them during their short time in L.A."

Later in this letter, which I came upon by happenstance, my friend was asked if she could book a room for them to meet with her. "It is difficult for us to find a place. Even though the United States State Department FUNDS their airfare and lodging, there is no provision in the budget for meeting rooms. Hence the IVCLA has been asked to seek out community centers, libraries, and other public institutions willing to donate their meeting space." So, being a citizen of good standing, I got in the car and we booked these representatives of the State Dept We also found a meeting room at a neighborhood park. After all, how could you refuse a request saying, "We just need a private room for thirteen people (the delegation consists of nine visitors and three interpreters). It would be a shame for them not to be able to meet with you because we cannot find a meeting space."

Well, for sure! Rumor has it that our country is in a depression. But if we have the money to bring over a group of distinguished representatives, from such marvelous countries as Gaza and Saudi Arabia, we can't be doing so badly. I just hope, in this little junket that Obama and company have arranged, they're taking them to Disneyland and all of our other fun spots.

For a brief period, I was looking forward to sitting like a fly on the wall at this meeting to see what transpired. However, in my over zealous effort to bring this information to the public, I contacted terrorism expert, Dr. Carole Lieberman and journalist Ari Bussel, so they might join me, utilizing their expertise on terrorism to contribute to the discussion and to assess their motives for learning how to use the Public Access airwaves. It seemed more than likely that any Public Access TV show put on by journalists from terrorist countries would be used to spread propaganda and recruit terrorists! What's worse is that our government is paving — and paying — the way for them to learn these skills! I was then un-invited and never was allowed to attend.

I remember several years ago, going to the local mosque in Mar Vista. They had some visitor's day or something, again sponsored by our Justice Dept. I remember the panel on the dais was teaching their audience how to know when they had a complaint or they felt they were being 'profiled'. I thought it obscene that the members of the mosque were being given information on how to use our laws and customs to harm us. However, the topper was when a well-dressed woman stood up and said, "Our children are now grown and going into the universities. Our next job has to be to propel them into three fields: education, politics and finally media."

Well, folks, it is my opinion, that they accomplished it all. Our universities are hotbeds of Muslim teachings and conflict. How many of you have noticed the names on the articles in your local newspapers praising the Muslim lifestyle? The L.A. Times seems to have a three-page spread every week or two deploring the plight of the poor Palestinians. And, as far as politics, I feel it pretty safe to say they have arrived! From the White House on down. And, finally, as Jay Leno says, "We're going through tough times." But don't you feel encouraged?

Personally, I think that we are ignorant and ill-informed to consider it positive and hospitable to teach terrorist nations how to use our system of Public Access as a cheap and easy way to recruit more terrorists. And amazingly, even though our programs are being cut and there are no funds for schools and police, we can always find spare money to play host to these visitors from 'poor' countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arabs Emirates and the rest.

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com. She is author of "Some Of My Best Friends: Only The Names Have Been Changed To Protect The Guilty." Her upcoming book is entitled "Prison Cheerleader: How A Nice Jewish Girl Went Wrong Doing Right."

To Go To Top

Posted by Miki and Herb Sunshine, May 25, 2009.

This was written: 11 Kislev 5733 — November 17. 1972 by Rabbi Meir Kahane.

His essays are distributed by Barbara Ginsberg, who writes: "Anyone reading this Rav Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles written by Rav Kahane and would like to be, please contact me at: barhow@netvision.net.il "

Previously e-mailed Rav Kahane writings are available at
http:/www.barbaraginsberg.blogspot.com Posting on Baruch Marzel's activities are at


There is no mezuza on the Old City of Jerusalem's Damascus Gate (Shaar Sh'chem). And it is important that every Jew understand why other major entrances to the Old City, such as Jaffa Gate, DO have a mezuzot while this one does not; why there once WAS a mezuza at Shaar Sh'chem (it was taken down by Arabs and never replaced by Mayor Teddy Kollek), and why the Jewish Defense League demanded that it be allowed to put up the mezuza, was refused permission and had a number of its people arrested.

The Old City of Jerusalem is surrounded by the famous wall that is such an attraction for all tourists. Entrance to the Old City is through a number of gates, of which Jaffa and Damascus are the two most famous and heavily traveled. After the 1967 War, mezuzot were placed on all the gates, including Damascus or Sh'chem and ARAB EXTREMEISTS RIPPED OFF THE LATTER ONE. The Israeli government preferred not to notice and allowed the desecration to remain unanswered. Why? The answer to this is also the answer to the JDL's making such an issue out of a gate which may very well — due to the majority of Arabs living within the Old City — be free from the religious obligation of a mezuza, in the first place.

The Israeli government has followed a careful policy for more than five years of not "aggravating" the Arabs. This has involved Israeli refusal and failure to assert Jewish rights as well as a willingness to, de facto, accept Arab demands that run counter to those Jewish rights. Part of that policy includes the refusal to allow Jews unlimited settlement anywhere in that part of Eretz Yisrael liberated after 1967; refusal to allow Jews to live anywhere except in certain parts of the Old City of Jerusalem; and of course, refusal to declare that the liberated areas of 1967 are formally part of the Jewish State.

It has also manifested itself in such things as a kid-gloves policy and collaboration with notorious Jew-haters such as Hebron's Mayor Ja'abari (whose part in the Gush Etzion and Hebron massacres ranges from ugly to murky) as well as government financing and support for an Arab university on the West Bank that will produce the Arab terrorist and nationalist leaders in the next decade.

The policy has been hailed as a success, with Dayan declaring that the peace in the liberated areas over the last five years and relative lack of terrorism have proven the wisdom of this policy. In short-range terms he is correct; in the long run this policy is disastrous.

Not only does it take away basic Jewish rights, but it tells the world and, worse — the Israeli Jewish youngsters — that these rights in truth do not exist. Should we, in the future, decide to demand them, we will find our won credibility attacked and opposition intense from our own people who will, justly, ask: "But if we really are entitled to these things, why did we not demand them earlier and why did you stop those who did demand them?"

For five years we allowed Arabs majority rights in the Hebron Cave — what does this tell the Israeli student? That it really is Moslem and that only the "fanatics" want "more" than the proper Jewish share. For five years we refused Jewish settlement in the West Bank cities of Hebron, Sh'chem, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Jenin, etc. What does this tell the Israeli youth? That these cities are Arab cities, not Jewish ones. For five years we have had different rules and laws for pre-war Israel and for the liberated lands. What does this tell any logical person? That they are not really Jewish but that Israel is using the lands as cards for bargaining.

What will happen when Israel decides to demand certain of these rights or comes up with a "compromise" scheme by which it agrees to return a large part of the lands but keep some of the others for "security" reasons? The answer is simple. All the sensitive and liberal Jewish youth of Israel, its intellectuals, its writers, its professors, will rise up and say: "But we have no right to keep that land because it is not ours and the greatest proof is your own refusal to declare them ours from the very first day. This shows that you, yourself, Dayan, do not believe it is Jewish and your desire to hold on to even some of that land is still robbery and annexation.

No matter what the clever propagandists say, the Arab is NOT equal in Israel so long as Israel remains true to the Zionist dream that created it as a JEWISH state. So long as the original rationale for the return to Israel holds true (and if it does not, then we have no right at all to Israel); so long as Israel is ours because it is the home of the Jewish people where they can live free from physical holocaust and spiritual-cultural assimilation; so long as Israel has a Law of Return which applies only to Jews and not to Arabs, then Israel is a JEWISH state (and not one that disregards nationality and religion) and the Arab is NOT equal.

The Arab knows this and his placid acceptance of Jewish rule is not an indication that he is happy and has made his peace with the situation. It simply means that five years is a very, very short time in the Middle East; that the Arabs are making a little money now; that a generation of young Arab intellectuals who place nationalism and ideals over that money has not yet fully ripened; and that we face a terrible Northern Ireland-type confrontation in the years to come. And on the Arab side will be ranged thousands of Jews who will back the Arabs because Moshe Dayan — in his short-sighted cleverness — chose not to assert Jewish rights immediately.

What a difference it would have made had Israel — immediately after the June, 1967 War — when the while world stood solidly behind her, knowing that she had almost gone under and miraculously survive, declared: All this land is ours, historically; it is Jewish from the times of the Bible; it is officially ours and it will never be returned. How much greater the moral and legal hold than the present sly, diplomatic game! But we did not do it. We did not and we did not say to the world: Israel is a Jewish State, the home of the Jewish people where Jewish sovereignty reigns and where Arabs can live as individuals but as a permanent demographic and cultural minority.

And this is why the JDL wants a mezuza on Shaar Sh'chem. Not because there are not other things that are as important or more so. But, because the reason for the lack of a mezuza is the underlying mistake of Israeli policy: We do not want to alienate the Arabs, we do not want to declare blatant Jewish sovereignty over a gate that is in a totally Arab part of the city. We do not want to affix a mezuza and Jewish sovereignty — both!

And that is the heart of the JDL intention. Not only the affixing and the stamping of a mezuza, but a fixing and stamping of the word "Jewish" on the city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not an Arab-Jewish city. It is a city where Jews and Arabs live, but the city is Jewish, the sovereignty is Jewish and the Arabs live there by individual rights as opposed to the Jewish right of peoplehood there. For this, and in order to save Israel from the short-sightedness of its leaders it is worthwhile fighting for the mezuzah on Shaar Sh'chem and even going to jail. At least when the Israeli youth, in years to come, will march for Arab rights and say to Dayan: But you yourself never asserted Jewish rights and thereby recognized the Arab ones — we can say: True, but we fought this from the beginning, we wanted to tell you the, that this city and this country are JEWISH and not shared and we even were willing to go to jail for the mezuza on Shaar Sh'chem and the settlement in the city of Sh'chem.

Herb Sunshine is a lawyer, qualified to practice in U.S.A. and Israel. He and his wife Miki live in Jerusalem. Contact them by email at sunshine.h@012.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 25, 2009.

The picture is unsettling — indeed, infuriating, but it's also complex and, I believe, not grim.

There are some indications of government intentions to get tough with regard to some 20-plus "illegal outposts," with Defense Minister Barak declaring that he will take them down, one way or another.

For the record, an "illegal outpost" is usually a small collection of modest buildings or caravans — often on a hilltop — that has been constructed without permission. The line is not all together clear, however, as to what "without permission" means, as sometimes there has been some legitimacy conferred by some department or other — as, for example, if some electric lines have been put in. Sometimes an "outpost" is no more than a neighborhood of an existing community, and sometimes what was illegal is declared legal — for the political aspects of this are considerable.

Many of the "illegal outposts" have had that status for some years. This is not a new development. Yet it is now that action is being taken, or threatened, more vociferously.


The news today was that nine outposts have been served with "zoning notices," informing them that they are "illegal." While there was no announcement that they will be taken down, such zoning notices often precede demolition orders. And this follows the very recent demolition of Maoz Esther.

One example serves to demonstrate how ridiculous the whole thing can become: Of the nine outposts listed, one is "Hazon David, Kiryat Arba-Hebron." This, it turns out, is not a cluster of buildings and is not an "outpost" in the general sense of that word. It is one structure — a very temporary, tent-like structure — outside of Kiryat Arba, on the road to Hevron. A structure used as a synagogue. That's it. "Hazon David" means David's vision and is named in memory of David Cohen and Hezi Mualem who were murdered by terrorists seven years ago outside of Kiryat Arba.

Taking down this modest place of prayer and study, where no one actually lives, really advances peace, right?

This is what Barak and company need to be concerned with? They should hang their heads in shame. This makes Obama happy? What?


When we ask why this is happening now, there are general answers in terms of Netanyahu having somehow caved to Obama. But I'd like to look a bit closer at the issues (including more below).

Nahum Barnea, writing on YNet, makes the observation that the mere fact that Netanyahu refuses to even say "two state solution," never mind to agree now to negotiate such a "solution," puts the heat on the outposts and settlements. Were negotiations advancing, then Obama would be able to boast of "progress," and the issue of outposts would be minimal. But as it is, Obama has nothing to point to, unless there is "progress" on this score.

Barnea doesn't say this explicitly, but what his analysis implies is that the very strength of our prime minister for the big issues makes our government more vulnerable on the small issues. And there is the possibility — which hardliners don't accept — that there will be some quid pro quo here.


And then there's the upside of what's happening:

PM Netanyahu told the Cabinet yesterday that, when he was in Washington, he informed Obama that we would not stop building in Jerusalem or accommodating natural growth in settlements.

"Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, and we do not accept limits on construction or on our activity inside of Israel."

This in the face of a State Department statement that "Jerusalem is a final-status issue. Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resolve its status during negotiations..."

Well, Jerusalem may have been a final-status issue for Olmert, but it is not now.


In addition to this, we have a new strength within the Cabinet — so much so that it's questionable whether support could be garnered among the ministers for dismantling all of the "illegal outposts." As Gil Hoffman has written in the Post:
"...the ministers made clear that the settlers had a strong lobby in the Cabinet."

Leaders of Shas, Yisrael Beitenu and Habyit Hayehudi "each tried to take upon themselves the mantle of the settlers' top advocate, as did Likud ministers Yuli Edelstein, Yisrael Katz, and Benny Begin..."

Most vociferous in his defense of outposts was Katz, who said, "the government agenda cannot become a witch hunt against the residents of Judea and Samaria."

Edelstein and Lieberman criticized Barak for unilateral action without sanction of the Cabinet. Edelstein indicated that "an entire team of ministers would insist on keeping Barak in check and ensuring that the Cabinet would have the final say on the outposts..."

Barak, he said, "has not internalized that a nationalist government had taken over."


Additionally we see a new strength on the part of the nationalists of Israel. A meeting of several groups has been held and plans have been put in place that call for reinforcing the numbers at existing outposts, setting up new ones, and immediately rebuilding any outpost that is demolished.

I spoke today with David Wilder, spokesman for the Hevron community. His tone was cool, as he explained that Hazon David had been destroyed about 30 times already, and would be built again if the Defense Ministry took it down.

There is the feeling, with solid reason, that determined settlers can outlast government demolition efforts.


With justification, the nationalists point to the illegal outposts put up by the Bedouin in the Negev and Arabs in the Galil that the government ignores. It is their intention to make this issue more public.


It's not entirely clear to me how extensively the US media covered the plan by home-grown Muslim terrorists to target synagogues in New York City and down planes at a military air base. The plot was foiled in a sting operation, and the concern is that the lessons to be drawn from this will not be attended to with sufficient seriousness because the disaster was averted. The attitude, unfortunately, is likely to be one of "Thank goodness nothing happened!" and done.

In point of fact, however, a major alarm should go up with regard to the circumstances surrounding this planned attack: Three of the four alleged would-be terrorists were converts to Islam who were converted in prison.


Steve Emerson, founder and executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, addresses the serious dimensions of this problem in a recent piece, "Radicals in Our Prisons." Every American needs to take heed. Writes Emerson:

"Radicalism in prisons is a problem that has been festering for years...

"Some prison libraries include the Nobel Quran, an extreme interpretation of Islam's holy book that includes a call for jihad...

"These books are not reviewed by prison officials, perhaps due to language differences or because they are perceived simply as religious texts. [The Department of Justice], which has oversight over [the Bureau of Prisons], refuses to acknowledge the problem.

"Meanwhile, federal records identified by the Investigative Project on Terrorism and available on the Internet show a number of Muslim Brotherhood-tied organizations receiving government contracts, including contracts with the Bureau of Prisons, to perform work such as chaplain services and Islamic studies...

"Wahhabist literature, Muslim Brotherhood tracts calling for Jihad, Saudi produced Qurans that exude hatred for Jews and Christians — all of this continues to flow into federal and local prisons unhampered."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232009/postopinion/ opedcolumnists/radicals_in_our_prisons_170673.htm?page=0


Charles Krauthammer has also written an interesting article, "Obama in Bush Clothing," which I call your attention to. Says Krauthammer:

"...the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush. Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program.

"The latest flip-flop is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an 'enormous failure.' Obama suspended them upon his swearing in. Now they're back."

The pattern is an "Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy...

"OBSERVERS OF ALL political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government." This agenda includes wire taps, e-mail intercepts, turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries, and denial of habeas corpus to certain detainees.

What has happened?

"The urgencies and necessities of the actual post-9/11 world, as opposed to the fanciful world of the opposition politician, present a rather narrow range of acceptable alternatives."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212459529&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Now, if only the urgencies and necessities of the actual post-9/11 world would move Obama to shift his policy with regard to Iran.

Certainly he's getting only one slap in the face after another from the Iranians in response to his reaching out with offers of dialogue.

According to a local news agency, Iranian naval commander Admiral Habibollah Sayyari has announced the dispatch of several warships: "Iran has dispatched six ... warships to international waters and the Gulf of Aden region in an historically unprecedented move by the Iranian Navy." This, he says is, "indicative of the country's high military capability in confronting any foreign threat on the country's shores."

This war-like action comes as Ahmadinejad has rejected an offer by the US, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain to hold off on all new sanctions in exchange for a freeze on Iranian nuclear activity.

"Our talks [with major powers] will only be in the framework of cooperation for managing global issues and nothing else. We have clearly announced this," he said. "The nuclear issue is a finished issue for us."

And Obama will still try to dialogue on the nuclear issue in the face of this?


Coming full circle: PM Netanyahu injected a perspective relevant to this in his meeting with the Likud faction today. Giving in to US demands on the outposts is important to do, he says, so that there can be focus on Iran. But there are multiple way to read this.

Presumably he expects more from Obama in terms of cooperation on Iran if we give in on this. This may be the quid pro quo.

"We're not [living] in ordinary times," he declared. "The danger is gaining on us. The most dangerous threat to a living organism is not to identify danger. My role, first and foremost, is to secure the future of the State of Israel. This comes before anything else."

But he also seems to be deflating internal political dissension on the issue because he believes it weakens us:

"There must be broad national unity as much as possible, so as to stave off the danger."

A ruse simply to weaken dissent? Possible, but I do not believe so. Binyamin Netanyahu has been warning us about the dangers of Iran for years. I take him seriously here.

To attempt to severely weaken him politically over outposts — as is being threatened by those on the far right — just as he must make decisions involving attacking Iran would be, I concur, a mistake in judgment. Dissent should not stop but must be moderated in light of the priorities and the times within which we live. Purists see a slippery slope whereby if we surrender claim to a square meter of land we are surrendering our claim to Israel. But it will avail us naught if vociferous protection of that square meter renders us — G-d forbid — more likely to be blown away completely later.


Nothing is ever simple, and most certainly not where Russia is concerned.

It was very recently announced that we will be expediting the sale to Russia of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) following the cancellation by Russia of plans to sell Syria advanced MIG-31 fighter jets.

This was good news.

However...Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Hamas's Mashaal on Saturday and has declared that continued contact with Hamas is considered "necessary."

In fact, Lavrov hopes to see a delegation from a Palestinian unity government attend the peace conference in Moscow later this year.

Oh joy. Such a unity government would have as a major component a Hamas that embraces terrorism.


"The Good News Corner"

— Wheat, which is a staple grain in many societies, is subject to a virulent fungus disease called rust (because its spores have a rust color) that can destroy crops, causing food shortages and economic loss.

The answer to combating this lies here in Israel. For it is in Israel that a wild wheat grows, believed to be the original wheat plant before domestication. In the course of 10,000 years of domestication, the wheat was bred for certain properties considered desirable, such as higher yield, but in the course of changes lost resistance to disease.

Professor Tzion Fahima of Haifa University's Department of Evolutionary and Environmental Biology is working with a team that has discovered a gene in the wild wheat that provides resistance to eight strains of rust disease. The next step is to reintroduce this gene to domestic wheat, either by traditional breeding practices or genetic engineering.

Additional projects are anticipated that would involve work with the genes in wild wheat that make it more drought resistant and provide it with a higher percentage of protein and minerals.

— According to the World Health Organization, Israel is one of the healthiest nations in the world. WHO lists Israel with Europe, and it is with European nations that comparisons are made. (Israel is way way ahead of the nations of the MidEast.)

The Israeli infant and maternal mortality rates are much lower than European averages. E.g., in Israel there are three newborn deaths per 1,000 as compared with five in Europe. Israel has 37 doctors per 10,000 people as compared to 32 in Europe. Israel has low rates of infectious diseases and high rates of immunization. And the entire Israeli population has access to improved drinking water, compared to 97% in Europe.

— Now for the really important item: Work to be wrinkle free while you sleep (I am not making this up). An Israeli company named Cupron, in Beit Shemesh, makes pillow cases that contain copper. Perspiration from your skin as you sleep releases copper ions, which stimulate the production of collagen, which reduces fine lines and wrinkles.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, May 25, 2009.

Olive Schreiner is a South African novelist and social activist.


"Indeed it is difficult for all other nations of the world to live in the presence of the Jews. It is irritating and most uncomfortable. The Jews embarrass the world as they have done things which are beyond the imaginable.

They have become moral strangers since the day their forefather, Abraham, introduced the world to high ethical standards and to the fear of Heaven. They brought the world the Ten Commandments, which many nations prefer to defy. They violated the rules of history by staying alive, totally at odds with common sense and historical evidence. They outlived all their former enemies, including vast empires such as the Romans and the Greeks. They angered the world with their return to their homeland after 2000 years of exile and after the murder of six million of their brothers and sisters.

They aggravated mankind by building, in the wink of an eye, a democratic State which others were not able to create in even hundreds of years. They built living monuments such as the duty to be holy and the privilege to serve one's fellow men.

They had their hands in every human progressive endeavor, whether in science, medicine, psychology or any other discipline, while totally out of proportion to their actual numbers. They gave the world the Bible and even their "Savior."

Jews taught the world not to accept the world as it is, but to transform it, yet only a few nations wanted to listen. Moreover, the Jews introduced the world to one God, yet only a minority wanted to draw the moral consequences. So the nations of the world realize that they would have been lost without the Jews. And while their subconscious tries to remind them of how much of Western civilization is framed in terms of concepts first articulated by the Jews, they do anything to suppress it.

They deny that Jews remind them of a higher purpose of life and the need to be honorable, and do anything to escape its consequences. It is simply too much to handle for them, too embarrassing to admit, and above all, too difficult to live by.

So the Nations of the world decided once again to go out of 'their' way in order to find a stick to hit the Jews. The goal: to prove that Jews are as immoral and guilty of massacre and genocide as some of they themselves are.

All this in order to hide and justify their own failure to even protest when six million Jews were brought to the slaughterhouses of Auschwitz and Dachau; so as to wipe out the moral conscience of which the Jews remind them, and they found a stick.

Nothing could be more gratifying for them than to find the Jews in a struggle with another people (who are completely terrorized by their own leaders) against whom the Jews, against their best wishes, have to defend themselves in order to survive. With great satisfaction, the world allows and initiates the rewriting of history so as to fuel the rage of yet another people against the Jews. This in spite of the fact that the nations understand very well that peace between the parties could have come a long time ago, if only the Jews would have had a fair chance. Instead,they happily jumped on the wagon of hate so as to justify their jealousy of the Jews and their incompetence to deal with their own moral issues.

When Jews look at the bizarre play taking place in The Hague, they can only smile as this artificial game once more proves how the world paradoxically admits the Jew's uniqueness. It is in their need to undermine the Jews that they actually raise them.

The study of history of Europe during the past centuries teaches us one uniform lesson: That the Nations which received and in any way dealt fairly and mercifully with the Jew have prospered; and that the nations that have tortured and oppressed them have written out their own curse.

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Dann, May 25, 2009.

For Obama, it is win-win.

Linking US action against Iran with freezing settlement building, destroying Jewish communities and establishing a second Arab Palestinian state is a set-up for Israel's demonization and destruction. For President Barack Obama, it's a win-win.

No matter what happens, Israel will be blamed.

President Obama knows that, short of military intervention, nothing will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Making Israeli concessions the key to stopping Iran, therefore, allows Obama a perfect excuse: Israel didn't do enough; it's Israel's fault.

"Israeli intransigence" will be given as the reason for America's failure in Iran. 'If only Israel had evacuated more settlements, stopped building in Judea and Samaria, dismantled more checkpoints, given more aid to Hamas, stopped demolishing illegal Arab buildings, etc., then we could have done something,' Obama will say.

But Obama's agenda doesn't stop there. The big prize is Israel's nuclear capacity. Egypt especially has been urging the US to force Israel to open its facility at Dimona. Russian spy planes flew over Dimona prior to the Six Day War in 1967 and, according to Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez (Foxbats Over Dimona), wanted to bomb it. No doubt, Arab terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hizbullah have Dimona in their sights as well.

Pushing Israel against the wall is also a convenient way of deflecting Muslim terrorism away from American and European investments and interests. As long as Islamists think that Obama is on their side, they'll refrain from attacking, keep oil prices low and keep oil flowing.

Iran will make cosmetic adjustments so that Obama can claim victory; the crisis defused. And Israel will pay the price.

American troops will leave Iraq soon. It's yet unclear if the Taliban will make agreements with governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan to share power, as Hamas and Hizbullah have done. Jihadists, like the Moslem Brotherhood, will continue to grow in power and influence; they need to consolidate anyway before they move ahead, but their influence throughout the Muslim world and in Europe is substantial.

Israel is the perfect scapegoat: isolated, abandoned, it has few real options. It can try to implement Obama's agenda, but nothing it does will be enough to satisfy Arab demands. Nor would Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's coalition allow it. He could ditch the Right and turn to the Left, but it is unlikely that he would have enough votes to remain in power for long.

Whether Palestinian terrorists can restrain themselves while Israel carries out some form of withdrawal is uncertain. A freeze on construction in settlements would cripple, but not destroy, the movement; a clear majority of Israelis support settlements and don't want a Palestinian state. Destroying small hilltop "outposts" and even more isolated settlements can be done as a first step and without the trauma of full evacuation. 'Amputation to save the rest,' they will say, trying to justify surrender and buy time.

Act II (Munich 1938)

Arab heads of state will parade through Washington, as King Abdullah of Jordan this month with the same message: 'We are for peace; Israel must accept the two-state solution as offered in the Arab Initiative of Saudi Arabia — withdrawal to 1949 boundaries, including Jerusalem, Palestinian Right of Return, etc.'

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (both of whom are about to retire) will appear full of smiles: 'We want peace; Israel must accept a Palestinian state.' There will be no mention of terrorism and incitement, or acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

Even Syria may join, in return for American support for getting the Golan Heights.

Obama will look like the ultimate "peacemaker"; Israel will look like the bad guy.

There will be no hard questions.

Meanwhile, three new PA battalions, US-trained and US-equipped, are being deployed in the "West Bank". This augments hundreds of thousands of soldiers and terrorists already in the PA military — the highest ratio per capita in the world. General Keith Dayton, who is responsible for these new troops, admitted that if there is no Palestinian state within two years, these troops would probably rebel and return to terrorism.


Members of the Arab League and other Muslim countries will be invited to Washington, along with Israel, to sign "peace agreements" following Arab demands. It will be a gala event, with the Clintons in high gear, the State Department Jews (Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller, Dan Kurtzer and Martin Indyk, who helped force Israeli concessions during the 1990s), and, of course, Shimon Peres and friends. And what would a party to celebrate Israel's demise be without Jimmy Carter and Condoleezza Rice?

The Obamas will dance elegantly.

Act IV

A moment of silence.

Moshe Dann is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. This article appeared in Arutz-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Alpern, May 25, 2009.

Dry Bones writes

I saw the successful launch of the Israeli "Arrow Missile" on TV this evening. It's supposed to knock down Iranian Missiles that are on their way to wipe us off the map. The second news item was about the pressure, demands, and restraints that the Obama White House is putting on Israel. I joined the two items together in today's cartoon.
— Dry Bones, Israel's Political Comic Strip Since 1973

Contact Dave Alpern at daveyboy@bezeqint.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 24, 2009.


Registration still is open for Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center's Monday, June 8 — June 15 tour of Israel, its 17th. The Center invites professionals from all over the world to intensive "briefings and field tours with Israeli security, military and intelligence officials." The tour investigates the challenges of terrorism to Israeli survival, now that Hizbullah and Hamas are gaining strength.

Program highlights:

* Briefings by present and past officers in the IDF Intelligence and Operations branches, including the senior commanders of the Shin Bet...and Mossad.

* An exhibition by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) undercover soldiers who carry out targeted killings of Palestinian terrorists and deep penetration raids in Arab territory.

* Observing the trial of Hamas terrorists in an IDF military court.

* Visit to Sderot and the Erez Crossing into Gaza.

* Discussions with Israel's Arab agents who infiltrate the terrorist groups and provide real-time intelligence.

* The new realities on the Lebanese Border and the Hezbollah missiles threat.

* A first hand investigation of the controversial 'security fence' that has enraged the world.

* Intensive, hands-on tours of the front line military positions, the border check-points and intelligence bases.

* Small airplane tour of the Galil, water activities on Lake Kinneret, a cook-out barbecue and a Shabbat enjoying the rich religious and historic wonders of Jerusalem's Old City."

"For More Information: info@israellawcenter.org

Tel.: (US) 212-591-0073 (ISRAEL) 972-3-751-4175

Full Itinerary & Registration:

If it weren't for the economic crisis, I'd go.


At JFK Airport terminal 4, 4th floor, at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 27, to protest against dangerous U.S. demands of Israel. Examples: Israel should stop Jews from building in Judea-Samaria and turn the area over to the Arabs.

The conference arguments in sum: The Land of must not be negotiated away. With the Jewish people, it has an unbreakable bond. It never was the basis for another state. No other nation until 1948 claimed it as their land. It is mistaken to consider it "Palestinian."
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/20). The tenor of the arguments are religious-Zionist.

Why don't they ask the U.S. government to justify its demands? Why does the State Dept. expect a PLO state to make peace, when the PLO says it wants to take over Israel?

Why don't they question the logic of clearing half a million Jews from Judea-Samaria and part of Jerusalem, to make room for an exclusively Arab state, but not clear out the million Arabs from the rest of Israel, which is a Jewish state?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, May 24, 2009.

From Caroline Glick, deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post, comes alarming news. An expert on Arab-Israeli relations with excellent sources deep inside Netanyahu's government, she reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta, who recently took time out from his day job (feuding with Nancy Pelosi) to travel to Israel "read the riot act" to the government warning against an attack on Iran.

More ominously, Glick reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. She writes, "...we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy."

She goes on to write that the Obama administration is desperate to stop Israel from attacking Iran writing that "as far as the [Obama] administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran's nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself." She notes that American officials would regard any harm to American interests that flowed from an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as Israel's doing, not Iran's.

In classic Stockholm Syndrome fashion, the Obama administration is empathizing more with the Iranian leaders who are holding Israel hostage than with the nation that may be wiped off the map if Iran acquires the bomb.

Obama's end-of-the-year deadline for Iranian talks aimed at stopping its progress toward nuclear weapons is just window dressing without the threat of military action. As Metternich wrote "diplomacy without force is like music without instruments." By warning only of possible strengthening of economic sanctions if the talks do not progress, Obama is making an empty threat. The sanctions will likely have no effect because Russia and China will not let the United Nations act as it must if it is to deter Iranian nuclear weapons.

All this means is that Israel's life is in danger. If Iran gets the bomb, it will use it to kill six million Jews. No threat of retaliation will make the slightest difference. One cannot deter a suicide bomber with the threat of death. Nor can one deter a theocracy bent on meriting admission to heaven and its virgins by one glorious act of violence. Iran would probably not launch the bomb itself, anyway, but would give it to its puppet terrorists to send to Israel so it could deny responsibility. Obama, bent on appeasement, would likely not retaliate with nuclear weapons. And Israel will be dead and gone.

Those sunshine Jewish patriots who voted for Obama must realize that we, as Jews, are witnessing the possible end of Israel. We are in the same moral position as our ancestors were as they watched Hitler rise but did nothing to pressure their favorite liberal Democratic president, FDR, to take any real action to save them or even to let Jewish refugees into the country. If we remain complacent, we will have the same anguish at watching the destruction of Israel that our forebears had in witnessing the Holocaust.

Because one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb. And neither is Hillary Clinton.

Obama may have held the first White House Sedar, but he's not planning to spend next year in Jerusalem.

This was published on www.DickMorris.com on May 24, 2009

To Go To Top

Posted by Emananuel A. Winston, May 24, 2009.

It is known that as poisonous snakes grow larger and shed their skin, their poison glands also grow larger, making their bite even more deadly in their mature stages. Granted there are a variety of deadly snakes in Washington (no Garden of Eden other than the un-holy snakes).

Some have rattles and give warning while others lie camouflaged, pretending they are harmless, even friendly — until they strike.

Israel would do well to keep vigilant since the Jews have, over time, encountered them all.

In summation, the snake seduced Eve who seduced Adam, resulting in their ejection from the ease of life in the Garden of Eden. Similarly, the snakes of Washington have brought a curse on the nation of America and the American people who are now suffering — with more to come. Moreover, these same snakes have seduced weak leadership in Israel who will similarly make the nation of Israel suffer at the hands of both their mortal enemies and G-d.

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


ZOA troubled by Clinton demands

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has expressed strong criticism and concern over Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent remarks to not allow Jews to build additional homes or any other Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem; reiterating support for creating a Palestinian state when the Palestinian-controlled territories are in effect a two-headed monster comprising the terror-promoting, glorifying and sponsoring Palestinian Authority (PA) of Mahmoud Abbas in Judea and Samaria and the Iranian armed and funded, genocidal Hamas, which controls Gaza. At the same time, she is asking nothing of the Palestinians in return for these historic and monumental Israeli concessions, which would endanger its security, while giving away part of its ancient, holy Jewish land.

Israel has not constructed a single new settlement or community in Judea and Samaria since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. They have only added new homes within the boundaries of communities that already existed at the time of Oslo. The land on which Jews live in Judea and Samaria comprises less than 10 percent of the total area in question, while PA-controlled territory comprises 42 percent of Judea and Samaria. Together with Hamas-controlled Gaza, 99 percent of Palestinians live in these areas.

Secretary Clinton made the following statement in an interview on the al-Jazeera cable television network on May 19:

Demands total freeze on all Jewish growth and construction in Judea and Samaria:

"First, we want to see a stop to settlement construction, additions, natural growth — any kind of settlement activity. That is what the President has called for. We also are going to be pushing for a two-state solution which, by its very name, implies borders that have to be agreed to. And we expect to see two states living side by side, a state for the Palestinians that will be sovereign and within which the Palestinians will have the authorities that come with being in charge of a state with respect to such activities as settlements. So it's really a two-step effort here. We want to see a stop now, and then, as part of this intensive engagement that Senator Mitchell is leading for us, we want to move toward a two-state solution with borders for the Palestinians."

Reiterates intention to create a Palestinian state:

"...the President underscored our commitment to a two-state solution and also called for a stop to the settlements. We have made that very clear. I reinforced that last night at a dinner that I hosted for Prime Minister Netanyahu."

Reiterates weak conditions for recognizing Hamas terrorist group and including it in negotiations:

"I believe that Hamas has to comply with not only the Quartet principles but the underlying principles of the Arab Peace Initiative. You cannot expect either Fatah or the Israelis or Arabs who wish to see this matter resolved, with a two-state solution, to work with a group that does not believe in the outcome of these efforts. And in any peace negotiation that I'm aware of anywhere in the world, groups that are resistance groups, insurgent groups, guerilla groups, when they come to the peace table have to commit to peace. And we would expect Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist, to renounce violence as the way to the achievement of a homeland for the Palestinian people, and to recognize the prior agreements that have been entered into by the Palestinians either through the PLO or the PA."

Asserts Palestinians seek reasonable, peaceful goals:

"My hope is that I will see, you will see Palestinian children in their own state having a chance to lead normal lives, being given the opportunity to fulfill their own God-given potential, to get an education, to get the healthcare they need, to have good jobs and pursue their dreams. I don't want to see them consigned to years more of conflict that just destroys that future.We think that the Palestinian Authority is ready to be a partner. We believe through our efforts we will get the Israelis to make the kind of commitment to a two-state solution that is absolutely necessary. We know that many leaders in the Arab world see this in a different way, as the Arab Peace Initiative suggests. So let's try to bring people to that recognition, and that includes Hamas." ('Interview With Abderrahim Foukara of Al Jazeera,' State Department, Washington D.C., May 19, 2009).

The ZOA notes that Secretary Clinton's words diverge sharply from her previous positions as Democratic U.S. Senator from New York, when she spoke of the absolute need for Palestinians to end incitement to hatred and murder as being a prerequisite for any progress on peace-making and also affirmed the indivisibility of Jerusalem under Israeli rule and thus the right of Jews to live and build homes in any part of it.

Hillary Clinton's troubling transformation on Israel, as evidenced by previous statements:

October 2003:

'"How can you think about building a better future, no matter what your political views, if you indoctrinate your children to a culture of death?" Clinton said she supports conditioning aid to the PA on a "cessation of propaganda and hateful rhetoric" in textbooks and the media, and that she has written to US President George W. Bush urging him to demand an end to official Palestinian anti-Semitism and the promotion of terrorism as a pre-condition to resuming Middle East peace talks. It is clear that the Palestinian Authority, as we see on PATV, is complicit" in terrorist attacks, she said. "This is not Hamas [running the television station]. This is the Palestinian Authority."' (Melissa Radler, 'Sen. Clinton blasts PA for teaching children hate,' Jerusalem Post, October 31, 2003).

February 2007:

"...we must stop the propaganda to which Palestinian children are being exposed. That must be a priority for all people who care about children, who care about the kind of peace, stability, safety and security that Israel deserves to be guaranteed. I have been speaking out against the incitement of hate and violence in Palestinian textbooks for years. In 2000 I joined Nobel peace prize winner Elie Wiesel in New York to denounce the lessons of hatred and violence that are part of the curricula in Palestinian schools. I wrote, with my colleague Senator Schumer, a letter to President Bush, urging his Administration to do everything in its power to persuade the Palestinians to reverse their hateful rhetoric and embrace the opportunity to move toward a strong and lasting peace in the region. these children deserves [sic] an education that instills respect for life and peace instead of glorifying death and violence.

"This propaganda is dangerous. You know, words really matter... Because in idealizing for children a world without Israel, children are taught never to accept the reality of the State of Israel, never to strive for a better future that would hold out the promise of peace and security to them ... This has dire consequences for prospects of peace for generations to come. I believe education is one of the keys to lasting peace and security in the Middle East and the greater region. We cannot build a peaceful, stable, safe future on such a hate-filled violent and radical foundation. In the years since, I and others — who have been doing it long before I did in 2000 — raised this issue, there has still not been an adequate repudiation of this by the Palestinian Authority. And I worry about the chance for peace when the next generation is learning that fighting Israel is a glorious, religious battle for Islam." ('Hillary Clinton's full statement introducing PMW's report on Palestinian schoolbook,' US Senate Building, February 8, 2007, Palestinian Media Watch, February 8, 2007).

September 2007:

"I personally consider Jerusalem the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel." [Citing then-Senator Clinton's paper, 'Hillary Clinton: A Long History of Strong and Steadfast Leadership for the U.S.-Israel Relationship], "Hillary Clinton believes that Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned" ( New York Sun, September 17, 2007).


"The ZOA opposes Secretary Clinton's emphatic call for the ending of Jewish growth and construction in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. We repudiate the proposition that Jews, because they are Jews, may not move to or live in Judea and Samaria, the religious, historical and political heartland of the Jewish people, as it has been from the Bible to the Jewish nation-state 2000 years ago, to the Balfour Declaration to the League of Nations, which reiterated the fact that this is the Jewish homeland. On what basis is it said that 300,000 Jews cannot live among 2 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria, when 1.2 million Arabs can live among 6 million Jews in Israel proper?

"It is important to remember that Secretary Clinton was not talking here merely of unauthorized Jewish construction — and if she had, it would have been only proper to include a call for a cessation of all unauthorized Arab construction as well, something she did not do when addressing that matter some weeks ago.

"We note with concern, as the quotations provided above show, that Secretary Clinton's words diverge sharply from her previous positions as Democratic U.S. Senator from New York. Then, her position were very different: she affirmed that it was nothing less than prerequisite for peace that the PA end incitement to hatred and murder in their media, mosques, schools and youth camps.

"She was explicit that Jerusalem should remain undivided under Israeli rule. "Yet today, she demands that Israel stop allowing Jews to build homes in parts of the city.

"Tragically, the entire Oslo process and its aftermath are replete with U.S. leaders expressing the need for Palestinians to end terror and incitement but, 16 years later, the process continues despite the complete absence of performance. It is illogical, unjust and dangerous for the Obama Administration Obama to be demanding major, one-sided concessions from Israel and asking nothing specific or tangible of the PA.

"Worse, Secretary Clinton is reiterating the inadequate, weak conditions placed on Hamas for being legitimized and made a negotiating partner. The idea that the U.S. should deal with Hamas, an organization committed in its Charter to the destruction of Israel (Article 12) and the murder of Jews (Article 7), if it meets the three conditions just restated by Secretary Clinton is based on the extraordinarily na ve or malign idea that a bloodthirsty group of terrorists can become responsible and acceptable peace partners provided that they utter the right words on a few occasions when the cameras are rolling.

"Does the Obama Administration not recall that we went through the same charade with Yasser Arafat years ago? Then, we were asking of Arafat, as we are asking Hamas now, to utter the right words about renouncing terror, accepting Israel and renouncing incitement to hatred and murder in order to bestow recognition and legitimacy on him. Arafat did verbally renounce terrorism, accept Israel's right to exist and even signed several agreements to that effect, yet he immediately continued terrorism, repeatedly called for Israel's destruction in Arabic and continued incitement.

"In the case of Arafat and the PLO, the U.S. demanded that they renounce the PLO Charter which, while calling for terrorism against Israel and Israel's destruction, did not speak of genocide. Why, when the Hamas Charter is even worse, and its record of terror against Israel as least if not more bloodthirsty, are we not demanding that Hamas rescind its Charter?

"Look where this policy of demanding words rather than deeds got us. Further back in history, in 1938, we have another example where words meant nothing. We granted Hitler negotiations and huge concessions when he simply uttered phony words of peace and in the end he consumed Czechoslovakia — and we ended up with a world war and the Holocaust.

"In short, getting career haters and terrorists to say certain words, or even sign certain agreements, is not a policy because, when they do, it means nothing. Therefore, even if Hamas uttered the few words that we're asking of them, the result would be the same as it was when we dealt with Arafat. Words and signatures mean nothing when they come from murderers. Surely if such people are capable of murdering they are capable of lying. By restating these conditions for Hamas' participation in government and negotiations, we are really asking Hamas to lie to us so we can give them recognition and financial aid.

"From where comes this idea that the most despicable terrorists can be rehabilitated by uttering mere words? Current U.S. conditions for talks with Hamas are already too elastic and thus meaningless — the rights words about renouncing terror, accepting past agreements and recognizing Israel would mean nothing even if Hamas was prepared to claim it was doing these things — which it doesn't.

"If the Obama Administration insists on these inadequate and failed criteria, at the very minimum it should be insisting on verifying them with deeds, not merely words — the rescission of the Hamas Charter; the dismantling of its terror squads and bomb-making factories; the complete overhaul of its education system and media broadcasting to remove all incitement to hatred and murder against Jews, Judaism and Israel; and strict adherence to such changes for at least one year before granting it any form of recognition.

"In the absence of such thorough-going change, how can we expect Hamas to be a peace partner? If a serial murderer like Charles Manson were to merely claim he had repented of his unspeakable crimes, would we suddenly drop all objections about, and feel comfortable with, our daughters dating him? If the Ku Klux Klan started issuing statements that it renounced hatred of African-Americans, would we start appointing their leaders to the boards of civil rights commissions? Of course not. The idea is laughable.

"If the Obama Administration makes these criteria the touchstone for dealing with Hamas, it will only result in a victory for Islamist terrorism, including the most murderous and anti-American Palestinian elements, and help prolong the conflict. U.S. policy should have the over-arching goal of bringing the Palestinians to see their non-acceptance and murderous hostility towards Israel as wrong and counter-productive, not something that may be indulged in while earning a seat at the negotiating table.

"By helping Palestinians put off the day when they genuinely reform their society to purge it of jihadist and violent, rejectionist elements, we would be worsening and prolonging the conflict, not managing or ending it.

"This wrong-headed and dangerous policy to engage Hamas would, if adopted, result in a weakening of European governmental demands that Hamas accept Israel, non-violence and implementation of past signed agreements. Seeing all this, why would Palestinian terror groups committed to Israel's destruction moderate or give up terror if they can simply wait out international pressure and wait for the U.S. to fold?

"We urge President Obama to repudiate the notion of cutting off the growth of Jewish life and construction in Judea and Samaria and dealing with Hamas and indeed the PA until and unless both undertake the necessary steps to end terrorism, accept Israel as a Jewish state, end terrorism and incitement and perform thus for at least one year. Doing otherwise will only harm all the President's objectives in the Middle East — to foster political moderation in the Middle East, to fight and oppose terror groups and to create the conditions for a peace settlement."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Mr La, May 24, 2009.

This is by Dore Gold, who heads the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and was the Israeli ambassador to the UN.

Israel has not yet declared its detailed positions in future talks with the Palestinians, and for understandable reasons. At this point, the government is justly focusing on the Iranian issue, which constitutes an existential threat. This is the context in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu conducted his visit in Washington D.C.

However, when the actual talks with the Palestinians are launched, Israel will have to avoid making the basic diplomatic mistake that previous governments have made in defining Israel's primary interests — especially when it comes to Jerusalem. For most of the past two decades, an asymmetry could be observed in how the two parties handled their struggle in the diplomatic sphere. While the Palestinians maintained that their goal was to achieve a Palestinians state whose capital is Jerusalem, most Israeli declarations sufficed with general statements that the goal is peace, or peace and security.

In other words, whereas Israel presented an abstract goal, the Palestinians spoke about a clear and well-defined purpose. As a rule, the side that presents clear objectives is the triumphant one in any political conflict. Little wonder, then, that the contemporary diplomatic discourse is focusing on the Palestinian narrative, and Israel's arguments have been swept aside. Thus the asymmetry between how the Israelis and the Arabs presented their arguments to the world became one of the central factors responsible for the ongoing erosion in Israel's diplomatic status.

This process comes despite the fact that Israel's claims rest on a broad base, and have in the past received solid international recognition, especially when in comes to Jerusalem. In 1967, for example, when the Israel Defense Forces entered East Jerusalem, the Soviet Union's attempt to label Israel as the aggressor failed. The world's leading jurists recognized its superior right to possess Jerusalem in light of the fact that Israel had entered the city in a defensive war. U.S. State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who also headed the International Court of Justice at The Hague, wrote in 1970 that "Israel has better title in the territory that was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than Jordan and Egypt."

The esteemed British jurist Elihu Lauterpacht expressed a similar view. Such views are significant in international law, as implied in the constitution of the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

Because of the historical circumstances of the Six-Day War, the United Nations Security Council did not insist on a full withdrawal to the 1967 borders, as clearly stated in Resolution 242. Morover, former U.S. ambassador to the UN, Arthur Goldberg, mentioned at one occasion that Resolution 242 did not include Jerusalem, making it of a different status than the West Bank.

In 1994, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, announced at the Security Council that she rejects the assertion that Jerusalem is "occupied Palestinian territory."

The late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin stressed that there was no contradiction between the willingness to hold talks with the Palestinians and the insistence on Israel's legal right to Jerusalem. Two years after his government signed the Oslo Accords, Rabin reiterated in a speech to the Knesset his belief regarding the need to keep Jerusalem united. This position received further backing by a decisive majority in both houses of Congress in 1995.

Two Israeli governments that proposed to divide Jerusalem have come and gone since then, though they never reached a final agreement. Israel need not be bound to the protocols of a failed negotiation.

To protect Jerusalem, Israeli diplomacy must reestablish the unification of the city as a clear national goal, and not abandon the subject of Jerusalem exclusively to Palestinian spokespeople.

Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, May 24, 2009.
This comes from the Women in Green The pictures are by Rivka Ryback. They are part of a group to be found on the Yesha Bulletin and are archived at

A beautiful morning in Shdema.

Over 250 people came to Shdema on Friday to celebrate the day of the liberation of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan.

Shaul Goldstein, mayor of Gush Etzion, praised the struggle for a Jewish Shdema and welcomed the new division commander who arrived in Shdema with his entire staff and officers. Shaul Goldstein blessed the new commander with the blessing that under his command Shdema should be settled and populated.

Geula Cohen, Israel prize winner and initiator of the laws annexing Jerusalem and the Golan, told us how she passed those laws and gave us a list of mistakes that were done concerning Jerusalem.

A few examples:

*The mistake of not emphasizing, prior to the Six Day war, our long lasting bond and connection to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria — a mistake that caused the world to label us "occupiers" after the Six day war, despite the fact that we had liberated our Biblical homeland.

*The tragic mistake of bringing down the flag from the Temple Mount hours after we had won the 1967 war.

*The mistake of not settling East Jerusalem with Jews immediately after the Six Day war victory.

*The mistake of calling Jerusalem a City "holy to the three religions" when Jerusalem is only holy to the Jewish People. In Jerusalem there are locations holy to other religions, said Cohen, but Jerusalem as a city is only holy to the Jewish People.

Mistakes can be corrected. continued Cohen. and called for the immediate settling of East Jerusalem by as many Jews as possible and for the raising of the Israeli flag on the Temple Mount. The audience welcomed her speech with loud applause.

Dudu Elharar spoke to us about his connection to Naomi Shemer and sung from her famous songs. The moved audience sang along.

Letters of support by Mk Zeev Elkin and MK Dani Danon were sent to the members of the Committee for a Jewish Shdema. In the letters the two MK's praised the struggle to keep Shdema in Jewish hands and gave chizuk (support) to all those involved in that struggle.

The struggle for a Jewish Shdema continues and we call upon all to join our weekly events in Shdema.

For pictures about the event:

Pictures by Gemma Blech

Pictures by Rivka Ryback

Shavua tov,

The committee for a Jewish Shdema & Women in Green
For for details: click here.

Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, May 24, 2009.
This is a news item from Haaretz

A "57-state solution" to the Arab-Israeli conflict that would see Muslim-majority countries offer Israel full diplomatic recognition in exchange for peace "is not on the table," the head of the Arab League said on Saturday.

Speaking to reporters at the end of a meeting of foreign ministers from the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) meeting in Damascus on Saturday, Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa said media reports suggesting the OIC might offer Israel a joint peace deal were inaccurate.

"This is not on the table. All talk of this is inaccurate," Mussa said.

Jordan's King Abdullah II, in a May 11 interview with the Times of London, had spoken of a "57-state solution."

"We are offering a third of the world to meet (the Israelis) with open arms," King Abdullah said two weeks ago. "The future is not the Jordan River or the Golan Heights or Sinai, the future is Morocco in the Atlantic to Indonesia in the Pacific."

"The Jordanian proposal is in accordance with the Arab proposal," Mussa said Saturday. "The conflict would be finished with Israel's withdrawal from all occupied territories and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state."

Mussa said that if Arabs and Israelis struck such a deal, other predominantly Muslim countries would likely follow suit.

"But we do not see any progress in the current circumstances," he added. "Though there is a lot of clarity in the U.S. position, which can benefit everyone involved."

[Editor's Note: as one reader of this item wrote, "If they are not happy with the Third Of The World They Already Have, Why would One More Country Satiate Them?"]

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, May 24, 2009.

This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared in the May 18, 2009 Jerusalem Post.
(http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212406822&pagename= (JPArticle%2FShowFull) Contact her at caroline@carolineglick.com


US President Barack Obama underestimates the threat Iran poses to global security. Were this not the case, he would not have sent CIA Director Leon Panetta to Israel ahead of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's visit to the White House.

Panetta was reportedly dispatched here to read the government the riot act. Israel, he reportedly told his interlocutors, must not attack Iran without first receiving permission from Washington. Moreover, Israel should keep its mouth shut about attacking Iran. As far as Washington is concerned, Iran's latest threats to destroy Israel were nothing more than payback for statements by Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials regarding Israel's refusal to countenance a nuclear armed Iran.

Over the past several weeks, we have learned that the administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy.

The administration's nonchalance about the threat of a nuclear armed Iran explains why the White House is so up in arms about the prospect of Israel acting independently to prevent Iran from building a nuclear arsenal. As far as the administration is concerned, the only reason Iran would threaten US interests is if Israel provokes it. As far as the administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran's nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself. But if Israel preemptively takes out Iran's nuclear capabilities, and Iran in turn attacks Israeli and US targets in the region, the Obama administration will hold Israel — not Iran — responsible for whatever losses the US incurs. That was apparently the message Panetta wanted to transmit to Jerusalem during his recent visit.

WHILE LARGELY supported by the US media, the administration's view of the Iranian threat is not without its domestic critics. Opponents of the administration's policy of engagement and appeasement have pointed out that a nuclear armed Iran will surely destabilize the Middle East and as a consequence, will harm US national security interests. And this is true enough. Whether by spurring a regional nuclear arms race; destabilizing with the intent of overthrowing Western-aligned regimes in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Morocco; enabling its terror proxies in Hizbullah and Hamas to operate under its nuclear umbrella; or attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, it is clear that the emergence of Iran as a nuclear power will cause tragedy, grief, chronic war and instability throughout the region. And — as the administration's critics make clear — such a state of affairs would be antithetical to US national interests.

While correct, these warnings miss the mark. Yes, it is true that a nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the Middle East. But the Obama White House doesn't seem to care about that. What interests the White House apparently, is minimizing Teheran's animosity towards Washington. If it can convince the mullocracy that Washington is not a threat, then — the thinking goes — perhaps, the buck will stop at the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf.

This bit of wishful thinking is wrong both theoretically and practically. It fails to take into account Iran's stated intentions and the consequences of its likely behavior for the Middle East, and it ignores the fact that Iran's intentions and actions for the past two decades have not been limited to the Middle East.

For upwards of 20 years, and at a break-neck pace since 1999, Iran has built up a long strategic arm in America's backyard from which it is fully capable of attacking the US directly with the able and enthusiastic assistance of a network of proxies and allies.

IRAN POSES a direct threat to US national security through its alliances and military, intelligence and terrorist presence in South and Central America. Today Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Iran's Hizbullah terror cells, and other Iranian agencies operate in open collaboration with anti-US governments throughout the Western Hemisphere. The South American lynchpin of this new and growing Iranian-centered alliance system is Hugo Chavez's regime in Venezuela.

Through Chavez's good offices, Iran has developed a strategic presence in Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia and warm ties with Cuba. It is exerting growing influence in El Salvador, Brazil, Argentina, Peru and among FARC terrorists in Colombia. And it has highly developed and already proven human smuggling routes to the US in Mexico. It is through this alliance structure with anti-American regimes in Latin America and with sub-national Islamic and narco-terrorist networks in failing states that Iran already constitutes a grave threat to US national security. And it is through this rapidly expanding alliance system that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an acute danger to US national security.

So far, the Obama administration has dealt with the threat posed by Iran's strategic alliance with Venezuela and Chavez's string of allied regimes in the same fashion as it has contended with Iran itself: It has blamed the situation on the Bush administration. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it last week, the Bush administration's policy of "isolating leaders who have led the opposition to US policies in Central and Latin America has failed and marginalized Washington's interests."

CLINTON'S STATEMENT makes clear the basic and disturbing consistency of the administration's failure to understand that there are regimes that are inherently hostile to the US and will remain irreconcilably hostile to the US regardless of what it does or who sits in the White House. Just as the administration cannot get its arms around the fact that the Iranian regime can only justify its existence by maintaining its hostility towards America, so it cannot countenance the fact that Chavez is only able to justify his existence through his hatred for Uncle Sam. It has no way of explaining for instance the fact that Iran and Venezuela responded to Obama's attempts last month to extend an open hand to both countries by signing a memorandum upgrading their military alliance.

Were the administration able to understand the basic fact that some countries simply cannot abide by America, it would realize that the Iranian-Venezuelan military alliance itself is cause for a systematic reassessment of the rationale behind the US's Western Hemispheric strategy. As Italy's La Stampa reported last December, every week a Venezuelan airliner takes off from Teheran. It travels on to Syria's Damascus airport before continuing on to Caracas. These flights have no commercial value, and the passenger manifest is kept secret. But as La Stampa reported and as both US officials and Venezuelan dissidents have testified, these flights are used to transfer prohibited military equipment, including missile parts from Teheran to Syria. Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese-Hizbullah and Palestinian terror personnel then board the plane to its final destination in Caracas. Iranian Revolutionary Guards are sent to Venezuela to among other things train Venezuela's security services in methods for repressing internal dissent.

Venezuela's military alliance with Iran places Iranian military personnel and Hizbullah operatives at every level of Venezuela's military, intelligence and law enforcement establishment. For example, as the Washington-based Center for Security Policy's Western Hemispheric Security Project documented in a recent report, Hizbullah agents control Venezuela's passport agency.

In 2003, Chavez appointed Tarek el-Aissami, a known Hizbullah member to head the country's passport agency. Last year Aissami was promoted to serve as Minister of Interior and Justice. Then too, last June, the US Department of Treasury designated Ghazi Nasr al Din, a Venezuelan diplomat who served as the deputy ambassador in Damascus and Beirut as a Hizbullah agent.

Hizbullah has a large and active presence in Venezuela. It operates openly throughout the country through both Lebanese cells and through native Venezuelan operatives who have converted to Islam. In 2006, a Hizbullah cell comprised of local converts staged an attempted bombing against the US embassy in Caracas.

Hizbullah has developed a formidable economic presence in Latin America. Although it has run a web of businesses in the region for decades, since 2005 the economic importance of these businesses has been eclipsed by the terror group's involvement in worldwide cocaine distribution facilitated through its close ties with Chavez and FARC. According to the US military's Southern Command, Hizbullah in Latin America earns between $300-500 million per year. This dwarfs the $200 million a year it receives from Iran.

Through Mexico, Hizbullah members and other terror operatives are able to enter the US relatively easily. In 2002 for instance the US arrested a Hizbullah operative in Mexico who admitted that he had facilitated the infiltration of several hundred Hizbullah operatives into the US.

THEN THERE is Nicaragua under the leadership of Chavez's buddy Sandinista chief Daniel Ortega. Since he assumed Nicaragua's presidency in 2007, Ortega has facilitated a massive expansion of Iran's presence in Central America. With more than a hundred accredited diplomats, Iran's embassy in Managua — a massive compound surrounded by four-meter-high concrete walls lined with razor wire — is one of the largest diplomatic compounds in the world.

Even more disturbing than Iran's enormous diplomatic presence in Nicaragua are its massive maritime activities and plans. In 2007 Iran and Venezuela announced that they were investing $350 million to build a deep water port at Nicaragua's Monkey Point along the Caribbean Sea. Iran also announced its plans to upgrade Nicaragua's Pacific Port of Corinto. Finally, Teheran announced it would build a dry canal connecting the two ports. Such a building scheme would enable Iran to evade the Panama Canal; to build its own military infrastructure within the ports themselves; and to freely camouflage missile ships as civilian maritime traffic and use them to launch short and medium-range missiles against the US. Moreover, with its massive army of Hizbullah operatives on standby, Iran could launch attacks through its proxies — as it did in its 1992 and 1994 attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires — and so deny it had anything to do with the attacks.

None of this should suggest that anyone expects the US to attack Iran's nuclear installations. The administration's policies clearly rule out any such contingency. As for Israel, regardless of what the US does, it should be clear that Jerusalem will not stand by idly and allow existential threats to emerge and grow.

What people — and particularly Americans — could have expected is that the administration would take seriously the threat that Iran poses to the US in the Western Hemisphere. Depressingly however, the administration's apparent decision to abdicate America's position and responsibilities as the sole global superpower has led it to also abdicate its position and responsibilities as the most powerful nation in the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, what the administration's refusal to acknowledge the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran — rich with proxies and allies at America's doorstep — poses to America demonstrates is that in its haste to blame its predecessor for the fact that the US has real enemies, the administration is abdicating its responsibility to defend America itself.

Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, May 24, 2009.

This was posted by May 5, 2009 by Gadfly and is archived at


"THE CHICAGO WAY: When crime is a way of life for the authorities, where does justice begin?" Mark Mahon

Equity Private of the Finem Respice blog works her day job in the private equity and hedge fund business.

Write about finance long enough with the same electronic mail address and a number of interesting anecdotes will flutter your way. Write just a little bit longer and a shocking tale will pass under your eyes once or twice. Stick it out for two and half a hundred weeks and one is like to hear something quite disturbing. Hang in for more than a pair of years and a truly horrifying, bone chilling narrative will eventually confront you. Today, I have the distinctly unpleasant distinction of being on the receiving end of exactly this sort of recollection. That is, a bit of dialogue so genuinely awful that — were it not from a source I consider impeccable, and unimpeachable — I would not dare to credit at all. Unfortunately, I must do precisely this, and personally believe it to be totally, frightfully accurate. I take no pleasure in relaying it, instead hoping that someone more directly in the business of running such matters down and printing them will carefully document it and — if true — expose it, or — if not — discredit it quickly and finally. This (as yet unproven) yarn goes exactly like this:

Confronting the head of a non-TARP fund holding Chrysler debt and unwilling to release it for any sum less than that to which it was legally entitled without compelling cause, this country's "Car Czar" [Steven Rattner] berated the manager of said fund with an outburst of prose substantially resembling this:

Who the fuck do you think you're dealing with? We'll have the IRS audit your fund. Every one of your employees. Your investors. Then we will have the Securities and Exchange Commission rip through your books looking for anything and everything and nothing we find to destroy you with.

Faced with these sorts of threats, in this environment, with valued employees in the crosshairs and AIG a fresh, open wound upon the market, the fund folded.

It is a tale literally so outlandish and difficult to picture that, in these circumstances and given the source, it rings absolutely true. Consider all this in a larger context where:

You see Non-TARP entities claiming that:

...we have been systematically precluded from engaging in direct discussions or negotiations with the government; instead, we have been forced to communicate through an obviously conflicted intermediary: a group of banks that have received billions of TARP funds.

...not to mention the fact that the salary, bonus and "stress test" results for TARP banks are all within Treasury's control.

Then you have White & Case attorney Tom Lauria, describing the experience of one of his clients, holders of Senior debt in Chrysler, to Frank Beckmann:

Lauria: One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House, and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.

Beckmann: Was that Perella Weinberg?

Lauria: That was Perella Weinberg.


WE SEE THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF (whose primary finance and economics qualifications appear to be a Bachelor of the Arts degree from Sarah Lawrence College — apparently appealing because of its strong ballet program — and a Master of the Arts in Speech and Communications) calling the plays over at Treasury for the last several months. To wit:

On Jan. 20, Timothy Geithner took control of the Treasury Department, directing the government's response to the financial crisis.

Within three weeks, the White House tightened its grip, alarmed by the poor reaction to Mr. Geithner's performance during the rollout of his rescue plan, government officials say. Since then, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been so involved in the workings of the Treasury that "Rahm wants it" has become an unofficial mantra among some at the Treasury, according to government officials.

We have senior government officials apparently ordering, or at least strong-arming, the Chief Executive of a publicly-held firm to make or avoid certain disclosures and to close a merger, "or else."

We watch the White House fire the Chief Executive of General Motors after he makes the most generous settlement offer to bondholders (to whom he owes fiduciary duties) up to that point, and smile gently when Wagoner's successor [Fritz Henderson] puts the screws to financial creditors and eases up on the UAW.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Eidelberg, May 24, 2009.

Socrates visits Israel; indicted for "racism".

Avigdor Lieberman has been accused of racism for proposing a loyalty oath for Arab citizens of Israel. I'm no fan of Mr. Lieberman, but this charge of his being a racist is absurd. It has been well established that most Arab citizens of Israel, while enjoying all the rights of this country, nonetheless identify with its enemies. Justice demands that those who enjoy the rights of citizenship fulfill the duties of citizenship. Otherwise, justice would be reduced to indiscriminate egalitarianism — the tendency in an Israel whose ruling elites derive their legitimacy and respectability from Israel's reputation as a "democracy".

Justice is the central theme of Plato's greatest dialogue, The Republic. What has this dialogue to do with a loyalty vote for Israeli Arabs? Let us proceed step by step.

The key figure of The Republic is, of course, Socrates. Socrates was a poor man. Poor men tend to be partisans of democracy. Why? Because democracies usually equate justice with equality. Democracies therefore give the poor the same rights as the rich. Yet, it was not that Socrates was a partisan of oligarchy, but he saw that democratic equality benefits the ignorant as well as villains. Socrates was a philosopher, a seeker of truth. Hence, he was skeptical about democracy, whose egalitarianism made no distinction between the wise and the unwise, the virtuous and the vicious. Even disloyal individuals may vote in a democracy. Can this be truly just?

The answer to this question is so obvious that it is not discussed in The Republic. Even though Athens was a democracy, none of the various definitions of justice discussed in that most subtle and profound dialogue entails the indiscriminate egalitarianism found in contemporary democratic societies, where individuals of hostile beliefs and values enjoy equal political rights.

Although members of the Athenian assembly were chosen by lot — seemingly the most democratic of all systems — still, to be eligible for the lot certain qualifications were required. First, one had to be an Athenian, meaning a person more or less identified with Athenian culture. Second, one had to have performed military service or be a taxpayer. In short, one had to be a patriotic or law-abiding citizen, and not mere consumers of rights typical of today's democracies.

Now, of the various definitions of justice discussed in The Republic, only one conforms to these rational qualifications; namely, that justice means "giving to each his due." This is a matter of proportionate equality, not of arithmetic (or indiscriminate) equality. The latter results in the democratic principle of one adult-one vote, which renders a person's intellectual and moral character irrelevant. This is why democracies are ruled not by the wise and the virtuous, but by mediocrities, if not worse. Which means that democracy is not the best regime; indeed, it may not even be a truly just regime. (This was also the conclusion of Aristotle.)

Justice is truly the most fundamental issue in Israel today.

Socrates led Athenian youth to this subversive conclusion. He willingly paid the penalty for undermining their loyalty to Athens in the process of liberating them from their Athenian, i.e., democratic, prejudices. Democratic Athens sentenced him to death.

Well, we don't give hemlock to philosophers any more; we ignore them. And no wonder. Philosophy, understood as a passionate love of truth, is dead. Still, what would the "gadfly"of Athens do were he in Israel today? He would surely inquire about justice. Sooner or later, some Israeli would say justice is giving to each his due. Socrates would probably lead him to a more refined definition, perhaps something like the following: Justice is giving equal things (such as rights and honors) to equals, and unequal things to unequals in proportion to their inequality; i.e., in proportion to their merit (as is done in classrooms), or in proportion to their contribution to the common good.

Any sensible Israeli would then see that to give Arabs who strive for Israel's demise the equal political rights of Jews, who struggle for Israel's welfare, is not consistent with justice. He would then conclude that if justice is to prevail in Israel, then its Arab inhabitants must either be disenfranchised or undergo a profound political and religious metamorphosis.

If Socrates led Israelis to this conclusion, then he would probably be condemned by Israel's political and intellectual elites and indicted for "racism" or `"incitement". True, he might point out, during his trial, that Israeli Arabs do not perform military service; that they engage in massive tax evasion; that they aid terrorists and commit terrorist acts; hence, that it is unjust to endow such disloyal Arabs with the equal rights of Jews.

All this would probably be of no avail at Socrates' trial. He would almost certainly be convicted and imprisoned, and any appeal to Israel's egalitarian Supreme Court would be futile. This is quite a commentary on Israel's political and judicial elites, from whose lips the honeyed word "democracy" is ever dripping, but with hardly a word about justice. There is hardly a public figure in Israel that has the courage, as well as the wit, to tell the truth about the manifest injustice (and deadly consequences) of indiscriminately giving the vote to this country's Arab inhabitants. Indeed, it is against the law in Israel to tell the truth about this issue.

Now we are prepared to go to the root of things. What needs to be said, and what no one dares say in Israel, is that this country was founded in 1948 on a monumental injustice: giving to Jews and Arabs — to loyal and disloyal inhabitants of Israel — the equal right to vote in this supposed-to-be Jewish State.

Not peace, but justice is truly the most fundamental issue in Israel today. In Israel, however, justice has been reduced to a leveling equality, which is why the sense of justice has been murdered in this country. This is why the killers of so many Jews in this country go unpunished. This is why Arabs who have murdered Jews have been released by various Israeli governments. This is why various Israeli politicians have clasped the bloodstained hands of Yasser Arafat or his successor Mahmoud Abbas.

You will not go to the root of things by explaining their behavior in terms of their desire for "peace". You will not truly explain their surrender of land for which Jews have so long yearned, fought and bled in terms of "American pressure". No, the suffering and humiliation of Israel today is the inevitable result of the monstrous injustice prescribed in the very Proclamation of the Establishment of the State, that all inhabitants of this State — Jews and Arabs alike — would receive equal political rights. This is not justice, but the negation of justice and even of common sense.

This negation has made children of Israel's rulers. It has made fools of Israel's intellectuals. It has driven this country to suicidal madness — the prey of Arabs armed by mindless Israelis posing as men. (All this is described in Isaiah 3:4; 5:20; 28:7, 15-18; 29:9, 14; 44:25.) It was injustice compounded by stupidity that led to the Oslo "peace process".

Until this issue is faced — until Jews pursue justice — neither politics nor political analysis will save Israel from recurring disasters. Professor Paul Eidelberg is an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is the founder and president of The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. He has written on the Arab-Israel conflict and on Judaism. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Marcia Leal, May 24, 2009.

This was written by Matthew Hausman and it appeared May 7, 2009 on the IsraPundit website


*"Justice, justice shall you pursue." (Devarim, 16:20)

"The three are one and the same: if the law is upheld, there is truth and there is peace." (Jerusalem Talmud, Taanit 4:2)

The Torah portion of Shoftim in the book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) recounts the appointment of judges in ancient Israel, and is often thought to embody the Torah concept of justice. Indeed, its most famous dictum is "tzedek, tzedek, tirdoph," ("justice, justice shall you pursue"), which today is used to rationalize just about any demand made on Israel in the putative name of peace. But what is the Jewish concept of justice? Does it require peace negotiations with sworn enemies? Does it demand unilateral capitulation without assurances or the sacrifice of one's needs in favor of those of one's opponent? The answers to these questions are not simply esoteric exercises in an intellectual vacuum, but rather depend on material facts and circumstances, nuanced moral shadings, and obstreperous political realities.

The repetitive construction of the phrase "justice, justice shall you pursue" is not merely a literary device, but rather suggests doctrinal substance. According to Rav Ashi (Sanhedrin 32b), the repetition of the word "Tzedek" implies two kinds of justice; one based on the strict application of the law, and the other predicated on compromise in applying the law. According to Rabbi Bunim of Peshischa, this verse also implies that the process of obtaining justice must itself be just. That is, the ends don't always justify the means, and the results should not be sullied by the methods.

But these parallel applications predate the Talmud and the commentaries and hearken back to the Torah itself. The concept of "an eye for an eye" found in the Book of Vayikra (Leviticus), for example, was not literally applied, but rather formed the basis for requiring an exchange of value as restitution for physical harm and personal injury. If one caused another to lose an eye, an ox or a sum of money, he was required to compensate the injured party for the value of his loss. It was this legal construct that took the concept of "justice" beyond its purely punitive and primitive application and gave rise to tort law. What justice was there in blinding or crippling a person who injured another? Torah and Rabbinic law found greater justice in a system that provided compensation for the injured rather than the literal exchange of an eye for an eye.

The law also understood that individual results could be shaped by peculiar facts and circumstances. Therefore, according to Rabennu Nissim, the king in ancient Israel had authority to impose sentences outside the boundary of the law when strict adherence would defeat its spirit. After the monarchy was abolished, the courts themselves assumed the authority to craft the sentence to fit the situation if, at the end of their deliberations, the judges determined that justice was not properly served. Thus, there was recognition that strict adherence could sometimes be detrimental, as observed by Rabbi Yochanan who stated that: "Jerusalem was destroyed only because ... they based their judgments [strictly] upon Biblical law, and did not go beyond the letter of the law." (Bava Metzia 30b.)

Clearly, the Rabbis acknowledged the value of common sense in seeking justice.

These concepts of justice are often cited as the underpinning of western legal thought; and yet they are frequently misunderstood when applied to Israel and the peace process. Whether achieved through strict application of the law or through compromise, justice neither condones nor requires unilateral concessions to the detriment of one party. Moreover, the law forbids engaging in acts that will be injurious to human life.

Supposed friends of Israel often argue that she should give up land, acquiesce to the dubious demand for the Arab "right of return" and retreat to indefensible borders, all in the spirit of compromise as articulated in the Talmud. Moreover, progressive groups such as J Street and Israel Policy Forum entertain scenarios of a two-state solution or a bi-national state stripped of its institutional Jewish character. But neither of these "solutions" is sustainable under any formulation of justice, particularly when Israel receives no mutual concessions and the result would likely sacrifice Israeli lives.

If Israel were to agree to the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, she would be left with a narrowed geographic waistline and a hostile population on either side that could launch attacks from opposing fronts. Israel has been the target of terrorism and attack since before her rebirth in 1948. More recently she has witnessed the ascendancy of Hamas and suffered an unending storm of missiles since the disengagement from Gaza. Hamas steadfastly refuses to renounce terrorism or recognize Israel's right to exist, while the PA publicly refuses to acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state.

Thus, in agreeing to a two-state solution, Israel would be acquiescing to the creation of a hostile state where none had ever existed before, and would receive no reliable assurances in return. Such a resolution would only serve to weaken Israel, increase the risk of continued hostilities, and facilitate the ability to inflict Israeli casualties. This would clearly not serve the cause of justice, but rather would trample certain aspects of Jewish law that are supposed to be inviolate.

The Rabbis taught that most commandments could be set aside in order to preserve life ("pekuach nefesh"). When the Romans forbade observance of Jewish rituals during the Hadrianic persecutions, for example, passivity could be rationalized in the name of survival.

Nevertheless, certain commandments could never be suspended even on pain of death; specifically, the prohibitions against sexual deviancy, bowing to other gods, and murder (including suicide and human sacrifice). Any peace plan that increases the likelihood of loss of life would be incompatible with justice because it would necessarily transgress an inviolate prohibition.

Also, inherent in seeking justice by compromise is the need for all parties to give some ground to achieve a fair resolution.

Unfortunately, the proposed two-state solution requires only Israel to concede anything of value (i.e., land) for the creation of a state that never existed and a diminution in size that threatens her continued existence. The Arab nations will not concede their ludicrous demand for the "right of return," which is intended to destroy Israel as a Jewish state by displacing Jewish citizens with Arab "returnees."

Thus, the two-state solution being pushed by the Obama Administration is actually seen in the Arab world as a two-phased solution. The first phase is the creation of an independent Palestinian state for the first time in world history, while the second phase is the demographic annihilation of Israel as a Jewish state. The only thing Israel would receive in return would be the empty promise of recognition to be bestowed only after the fact. But what good is the promise of recognition when it is coupled with a resolute refusal to acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state?

Verbal promises of even limited recognition must be measured against the Muslim concept of Taquiya, which mandates the use of trickery and artifice to deceive non-Muslims into lowering their defenses in order to facilitate their defeat and subjugation. In the absence of any sort of theological or intellectual reformation, such verbal promises would be tantamount to no assurances at all. Because the proposed two-state solution would leave Israel with neither bargain nor benefit, it could not be considered "just" under any interpretation.

Moreover, the issue of Arab "refugees" and their "right of return" to Israel is not a matter of justice, but rather of subterfuge, which provides insight into their malicious long-term intent. It's no secret that the majority of Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, a refusal that was publicly reiterated by the supposedly moderate Mahmoud Abbas a few weeks ago. They refuse to acknowledge Jewish history, the continuous connection of the Jews to Israel and, consequently, the legal basis of the Jewish state. And yet, they demand an acknowledgment that they are refugees entitled to return to a land that they supposedly occupied for generations.

As defined by UNRWA, however, "Palestinian refugees" are those individuals and their direct descendants who lived in the Palestine Mandate area for a minimum of only two years preceding the 1948 conflict and who reside in areas where UNRWA services are available. This definition begs the question of why "refugees" are defined based on a minimum two-year residency in the mandate area (i.e., not just the State of Israel) if they claim to be part of a people that continuously inhabited the land for hundreds of generations. Why not simply define them as native born? Why create a definition that clearly applies to immigrants who were born elsewhere? By forcing such an absurd definition of "Palestinian refugees" while simultaneously denying verifiable Jewish history and rejecting Israel's Jewish character, her enemies show that they are not truly interested in achieving justice by compromise. Their transparent goals are to obtain concessions without consideration and to impose a dubious national narrative over objectively verifiable history. This dynamic does not fit the definition of "justice."

The Obama Administration is currently pushing its two-state solution based on the Saudi initiative, and groups such as J Street and Israel Policy Forum are complicit in advancing the charade. Even AIPAC recently endorsed a two-state solution at its most recent annual meeting, at which Rahm Emanuel hawked the Administration's agenda while simultaneously warning Israel against confronting the Iranian nuclear threat militarily. The Jewish concept of justice, however, does not condone threats to the personal safety of Israel's citizenry, the risk of national suicide or the surrender of autonomy. Moreover, justice does not require unilateral concessions without mutual exchanges. Those who claim that Torah Justice and Jewish values are conducive to such nonsense either do not know what justice is, or simply don't care.

Theoretically, one could make a case for bold concessions if all parties agreed to give up something that put them on an equal footing. But the Administration's current vision requires sacrifices only by Israel, and links the Arab-Israeli situation to unrelated issues, such as the Iran nuclear program. Under pressure from the Clinton Administration, Israel at Camp David offered to give up most of the West Bank, but her offer was rebuffed with an intifada. She then ceded all of Gaza, only to see it become a launching pad for missiles and terror. Given the long history of Arab intransigence, justice does not require that Israel offer any further compromises. Rather, justice requires that there by meaningful concessions from the other side of the table, which are highly unlikely any time soon. The Jerusalem Talmud (Taanit 4:2) states that "... if the law is upheld, there is truth and there is peace." But any attempt to force an unjust solution on Israel is not in accordance with the law, and thus ultimately can provide neither truth nor peace.

Contact Marcia Leal at marcia.leal.eejh@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Howard Grief, May 23, 2009.
The first letter to the Jerusalem Post refut[es] the false allegation that "the Jewish People have never had a historical or legal claim to the Sinai desert" made by Dr. Hillel Hurwitz, son of Harry Hurwitz, the founder of the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem. The second letter is to Ha'Aretz

Jerusalem Post
17 Adar 5769
March 13, 2009

To: Letters@jpost.com

Dear Sir,

With all due respect to Dr. Hillel Hurwitz of Ra'anana, he is grossly misinformed when he states in his letter (March 12, 2009) that "the Jewish People have never had a historical or legal claim to the Sinai desert". The Sinai Peninsula, contrary to what Menachem Begin thought, is indeed a geographical part of the Land of Israel, being the continuation of the Negev. It was part of the land promised to Abraham, the father of the Jewish People (Genesis 15:18). Moreover, Sinai is enshrined for all time in the Torah, the most sacred book of the Jewish People, as the revered site where Moses, after departing Egypt with the Israelites, received the entire Torah on Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 33:2-4; Mishna, Avot 1:1), including the Ten Commandments (Exodus 19:1; 20:1-14; Deuteronomy 5:1-18). Sinai subsequently formed part of Solomon's kingdom up to Nahal Mitzrayim, the Brook or River of Egypt (I Kings 8:65). There is no comparable Egyptian historical and religious association with Sinai.

In modern times, the central region of Sinai was also part of the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem during Ottoman rule and should have been included in the frontiers of the Jewish National Home, i.e., Palestine, when they were first delineated in 1920, but the British who had ruled Egypt since 1882 preferred to administer Sinai as part of Egypt to protect their hold on the Suez Canal. When Britain granted independence to Egypt in 1922 (not fully realized until 1936), all or most of Sinai lay outside its recognized international border. It was only as a result of the 1979 Peace Treaty, concluded by Israel with Egypt under Begin's direction that all of Sinai first came under the sovereignty of Egypt, when it was illegally ceded by Israel. At the very least, Begin violated halakha in ceding Sinai to Egypt and negated Israel's own right to all or at least a considerable portion of the peninsula.

In his famous speech to the Knesset on November 7, 1956, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion emphasized several times that Sinai had never belonged to Egypt proper. He made it clear in another speech the day before at Sharm-e-Sheikh read out to the troops on parade by Moshe Dayan, that he considered Sinai and the adjacent Red Sea islands of Tiran (Yotvat) and Sinafir to be a part of the Third Jewish Commonwealth.

Had Sinai remained in Israeli hands, it would not have become the terrorist smuggler's paradise it is today, and the disastrous disengagement from Gaza as well as the recent campaign would never have occurred.

Yours truly,
Howard Grief

19 Adar 5769
March 15, 2009

Herald TribuneHa'Aretz
21 Shocken Street
Tel-Aviv-Yafo, 61001

Most of your columnists favour the Arab enemy against Israel. I do not wish to continue reading their one-sided treasonous comments about Israel's so-called "occupation" of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the false accusation of the illegality of Israeli settlements in those regions of the Land of Israel, the alleged "disproportionate" use of force by Israel in Gaza in Operation "Cast Lead", the oft-expressed hope that the Barack Obama Administration will bludgeon Israel into submission to carry out a "two-state solution", etc., etc., etc.

You blacken the name and cause of Israel to the outside world. No other country in the world has such a self-hating newspaper as Israel has with Ha'Aretz. The Arab League should award you a prize for doing your utmost from within to destroy the viability of the Jewish State and to add an unnecessary twenty-second Arab state to the map of the Middle East in the heartland of Israel. Ha'Aretz should be investigated for committing the crime of treason, which it does almost daily, and for aiding and abetting Israel's enemies — under the relevant provisions of Israel's Penal Code.

You may also print this letter as a Letter to the Editor and bring it to the attention of the publisher.

Yours truly,
Howard Grief, Attorney

Contact Howard Grief by email at griefIsrael@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ryan Mauro, May 23, 2009.

The Bible-belt state of Tennessee is not known to have been targeted by Al-Qaeda or any other radical Islamic terrorist group, but the Volunteer State may be becoming a hotbed for the growth of extremism. Reports from Nashville, Shelbyville, and Dover indicate that Tennessee has gradually become a stronghold for radical Islamic forces that are transforming parts of the state.

On May 13, I reported on the discovery of extremism at the Al-Farooq Mosque in Nashville by award-winning counter-terrorism expert Dave Gaubatz, an individual that once held top-secret security clearance as an agent for the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations. The library carried extremist texts and audio tapes by known radicals such as Syed Maududi and Ali Al-Tamimi, who was convicted for his role in terrorism. One calls for the killing of homosexuals, and another describes how Muslims not engaged in taking up an armed jihad must "strengthen the capability of those fighting on the front line." Other texts were found by his fem

Most shockingly, one of his researchers recorded a seven-year old girl describing the teachers at the mosque as hitting the children. Although Gaubatz himself did not see such abuse, he described an incident where he heard a teacher scream and an 8-10 year old girl yell. After Gaubatz turned and looked to see what happened, he saw the teacher carrying a stick between 12 and 14 inches long. Although he did not see her get hit, Gaubatz said "from the reactions of the other children, I believe this happened."

Gaubatz forwarded the information to the Nashville Police Department and Child Protective Services, each of which declined to launch an investigation saying not enough information was provided. CPS also told Gaubatz that the Nashville P.D. did not inform them of the tip.

Gaubatz also says that you can hear the girl mentioning her "husband" on the audio, although Detective Brooks Harris from the department rejected that allegation, saying he and his staff repeatedly listened to the audio and that she was saying the word "aunt" in her native tongue. Gaubatz says that members of the mosque did confirm they practiced polygamy.

Al-Farooq Mosque is attended by many Somali immigrants, and Islamic websites say that services are offered in Somali. Nashville alone is home to about 5,000 such immigrants, and their lack of assimilation is becoming a common complaint in Tennessee. The town of Shelbyville is the most dramatic example of this problem.

Brian Moseley of the Shelbyville Times-Gazette has written an award-winning series about the impact of these refugees on the town of 17,000.

Moseley says that the local authorities described being frequently disrespected by the Somali immigrants, which number between 400 and 1,000, and are noticing that many become involved with gangs.

"Firefighters have told me that the Somalis refused to evacuate their apartment complex during a blaze and when they responded to alarm calls, the firemen are told to leave and that they are not welcome there...I have been told off the record that many officers are hesitant to even patrol after dark the apartment complex where the Somalis live," he told Jerry Gordon of the New English Review.

He also reports that the school system is having some difficulty in working with them, as they "have difficulties" with females with positions of authorities, and are very demanding that the schools conform to their wishes. They often try to haggle with storeowners, and sometimes refuse to speak to female supervisors at stores, schools and hospitals.

The presence of a radical Islamic compound in Dover makes the potential for radicalization among these Somalis much more dangerous. According to unconfirmed reports received by the Christian Action Network, where I serve as a national security researcher, some of these Somalis have moved to this compound, run by a group called Muslims of America, a front for Jamaat ul-Fuqra. The residents here are followers of a radical Muslim cleric named Sheikh Mubarak Gilani, who currently lives in Lahore, Pakistan.

Residents near other compounds have reported the sounds of gunfire, and a secret videotape shows Sheikh Gilani engaging in terrorist training and instructing Muslims who wish to receive his training in "advanced Islamic military warfare" to contact his Muslims of America compounds. If these unverified reports are accurate, then Dover may be one of the locations of the Somalis who have gone missing.

These issues, of course, do not mean that all Somali immigrants are problems, but it is clear that the government needs to find better ways to assimilate those who travel to the U.S. in large numbers as refugees. As these communities grow, the U.S. may find itself with unassimilated masses asserting themselves as a state-within-a-state and over the long term, dealing with the "No-Go Zones" and their subsequent instability as seen in France. Should this happen, Americans will look to Tennessee as one of the places where it first started.

Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com and the Assistant-Director of Intelligence at C2I. He's also the National Security Researcher for the Christian Action Network and a published author. He can be contacted at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.

This article appeared May 19, 2009 in Frontpage Magazine http://frontpagemagazine.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34916

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, May 23, 2009.

We see a Young ... inexperienced Socialist/Marxist wannabe Politician .... who is/was not known for any outstanding deeds, but solely Being a questionable Community Organizer .... with questionable groups in Chicago.... with very questionable people that are his mentors and friends....... with even more questionable recommendations ....

Recommendations.....from whom .... and to what ???

Being strangely glorified and pushed with funds from people like Soros .... to become A TRAINEE and A puppet for most .... for and in the highest office of political power ..... the United States Presidential Office.

Dangerous indeed !!!!

In short a man being trained on the Job (at the cost of the public) to become the worlds possible most powerful man .....

What is amazing:

People would never give a Butcher's shop and turn it over to someone who can only give Rhetoric speeches... but knows nothing about meat..... Neither... go and see a medical doctor ... a Surgeon... who was only trained on the job with NO qualifications ...... why would THEY elect a None-Qualified man to become THEIR president.

A man ....who refuses to be transparent.. to disclose his past and refuses to produce his birth certificate for eligibility to the highest office... by using stacks of lawyers and millions to do so ??????????????? ?.... There is a certain odor to this !!!!

The column below was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212438938&pagename= JPArticle%2FShowFull

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Contact her at caroline@carolineglick.com


Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's visit with US President Barack Obama at the White House on Monday was a baptism of fire for the new premier. What emerged from the meeting is that Obama's priorities regarding Iran, Israel and the Arab world are diametrically opposed to Israel's priorities.

During his ad hoc press conference with Netanyahu, Obama made clear that he will not lift a finger to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

And acting as Obama's surrogate, for the past two weeks CIA Director Leon Panetta has made clear that Obama expects Israel to also sit on its thumbs as Iran develops the means to destroy it.

Obama showed his hand on Iran in three ways.

First, he set a nonbinding timetable of seven months for his policy of appeasement and engagement of the ayatollahs to work. That policy, he explained, will only be implemented after next month's Iranian presidential elections.

And those direct US-Iranian talks must be given at least six months to show results before they can be assessed as successful or failed.

But Israel's Military Intelligence has assessed that six months may be too long to wait. By the end of the year, Iran's nuclear program may be unstoppable. And Iran's successful test of its solid fuel Sejil-2 missile with a 2,000 kilometer range on Wednesday merely served to show the urgency of the situation. Obviously the mullahs are not waiting for Obama to convince them of the error of their ways.

Beyond the fact that Obama's nonbinding timeline is too long, there is his "or else."

Obama made clear that in the event that in December or January he concludes that the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith, the most radical step he will be willing to take will be to consider escalating international sanctions against Teheran. I

n the meantime, at his urging, Congressman Howard Berman, chairman of the House International Affairs Committee, has set aside a bill requiring sanctions against oil companies that export refined fuel into Iran.

Finally there was Obama's contention that the best way for the US to convince Iran to give up its nuclear program is by convincing Israel to give away more land to the Palestinians.

As Obama put it, "To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians, between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat." This statement encapsulates the basic lack of seriousness and fundamental mendacity of Obama's approach to "dealing with a potential Iranian threat."

Iran has made clear that it wants Israel destroyed.

The mullahs don't care how big Israel is.

Their missiles are pointing at Tel Aviv, not Beit El. As for the international community, the Russians and Chinese have not been assisting Iran's nuclear and missile programs for the past 15 years because there is no Palestinian state. They have been assisting Iran because they think a strong Iran weakens the US. And they are right.

The Arab states, for their part, are already openly siding with Israel against Iran. The establishment of a Palestinian state will not make their support for action to prevent Iran from acquiring the means to dominate the region any more profound.

On the face of it, Obama's obsessive push for a Palestinian state makes little sense.

The Palestinians are hopelessly divided. It is not simply that Hamas rules the Gaza Strip and Fatah controls Judea and Samaria.

Fatah itself is riven by division. Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's appointment of the new PA government under Salaam Fayad was overwhelmingly rejected by Fatah leaders. Quite simply, there is no coherent Palestinian leadership that is either willing or capable of reaching an accord with Israel.

As for the prospects for peace itself, given that there is little distinction between the anti-Semitic bilge broadcast daily in Gaza by Hamas-controlled media, and the anti-Semitic bilge broadcast daily in Judea and Samaria by the Fatah/Abbas/Fayad-controlled media, those prospects aren't looking particularly attractive. That across-the-board anti-Semitic incitement has engendered the current situation where Hamas and Fatah members and supporters are firmly united in their desire to see Israel destroyed. This was made clear on Thursday morning when a Fatah policeman in Kalkilya used his US-provided rifle to open fire on IDF soldiers engaged in a counterterror operation in the city.

Given that the establishment of a Palestinian state will have no impact on Iran's nuclear program, and in light of the fact that under the present circumstances any Palestinian state will be at war with Israel, and assuming that Obama is not completely ignorant of the situation on the ground, there is only one reasonable explanation for his urgent desire to force Israel to support the creation of a Palestinian state and to work for its establishment by expelling hundreds of thousands of Israelis from their homes. Quite simply, it is a way to divert attention away from Obama's acquiescence to Iran's nuclear aspirations.

BY MAKING the achievement of the unachievable goal of making peace between Israel and the Palestinians through the establishment of a Palestinian terror state the centerpiece of his Middle East agenda, Obama is able to cast Israel as the region's villain. This aim is reflected in the administration's intensifying pressure on Israel to destroy Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.

In portraying Jews who live in mobile homes on barren hilltops in Judea and Samaria — rather than Iranian mullahs who test ballistic missile while enriching uranium and inciting genocide — as the greatest obstacle to peace, the Obama administration not only seeks to deflect attention away from its refusal to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is also setting Israel up as the fall guy who it will blame after Iran emerges as a nuclear power.

Obama's intention to unveil his Middle East peace plan in the course of his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, like his decision to opt out of visiting Israel in favor of visiting a Nazi death camp, make it clear that he does not perceive Israel as a vital ally, or even as a partner in the peace process he wishes to initiate. Israeli officials were not consulted about his plan. Then, too, from the emerging contours of his plan, it is clear that he will be offering something that no Israeli government can accept.

According to media reports, Obama's plan will require Israel to withdraw its citizens and its military to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. It will provide for the free immigration of millions of Israel-hating Arabs to the Palestinian state. And it seeks to represent all of this as in accord with Israel's interests by claiming that after Israel renders itself indefensible, all 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (including Iran) will "normalize" their relations with Israel. In short, Obama is using his peace plan to castigate the Netanyahu government as the chief destabilizing force in the region.

During his meeting with Obama, Netanyahu succeeded in evading the policy traps Obama set for him. Netanyahu reserved Israel's right to act independently against Iran and he conceded nothing substantive on the Palestinian issue.

While itself no small achievement, Netanyahu's successful deflection of Obama's provocations is not a sustainable strategy. Already on Tuesday the administration began coercing Israel to toe its line on Iran and the Palestinians by engaging it in joint "working groups."

Then, too, the government's destruction of an outpost community in Judea on Thursday was perceived as Israeli buckling to US pressure. And it doubtlessly raised expectations for further expulsions in the near future.

SO WHAT must Netanyahu do? What would a strategy to contain the Obama administration's pressure and maintain international attention on Iran look like?

Under the present circumstances, the Netanyahu government's best bet is to introduce its own peace plan to mitigate the impact of Obama's plan.

To blunt the impact of Obama's speech in Cairo, Netanyahu should present his peace plan before June 4.

Such a plan should contain three stages. First, in light of the Arab world's apparent willingness to engage with Israel, Netanyahu should call for the opening of direct talks between Israel and the Arab League, or between Israel and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, regarding the immediate normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab-Islamic world. Both Obama and Jordan's King Abdullah claim that such normalization is in the offing. Israel should insist that it begin without delay.

This, of course, is necessary for peace to emerge with the Palestinians. As we saw at Camp David in 2000, the only way that Palestinian leaders will feel comfortable making peace with Israel is if the Arab world first demonstrates its acceptance of the Jewish state as a permanent feature on the Middle East's landscape. Claims that such an Israeli demand is a mere tactic to buy time can be easily brushed off. Given Jordanian and American claims that the Arab world is willing to accept Israel, once negotiations begin, this stage could be completed in a matter of months.

The second stage of the Israeli peace plan would involve Israel and the Arab world agreeing and beginning to implement a joint program for combating terrorism.

This program would involve destroying terror networks, cutting off funding for terror networks and agreeing to arrest terrorists and extradite them to The Hague or the US for trial.

It should be abundantly clear to all governments in the region that there can be no long-term regional peace or stability as long as terrorists bent on destroying Israel and overthrowing moderate Arab regimes are allowed to operate.

So making the implementation of such a join program a precondition for further progress shouldn't pose an obstacle to peace. Indeed, there is no reason for it to even be perceived as particularly controversial.

The final stage of the Israeli peace plan should be the negotiation of a final-status accord with the Palestinians.

Only after the Arab world has accepted Israel, and only after it has agreed to join Israel in achieving the common goal of a terror-free Middle East, can there be any chance that the Palestinians will feel comfortable and free to peacefully coexist with Israel. And Israel, of course, will feel much more confident about living at peace with the Palestinians after the Arab world demonstrates its good faith and friendship to the Jewish state and its people.

Were Netanyahu to offer this plan in the next two weeks, he would be able to elude Obama's trap on June 4 by proposing to discuss both plans with the Arab League.

In so doing, he would be able to continue to make the case that Iran is the gravest danger to the region without being demonized as a destabilizing force and an enemy of peace.

Whether Netanyahu advances such a peace plan or not, what became obvious this week is that his greatest challenges in office will be to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons while preventing the Obama administration from blaming Israel for the absence of peace.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yid With Lid, May 23, 2009.

Jerusalem is arguably the most difficult issue to solve in the ongoing Israel-Palestinian "peace" process. The Palestinians are demanding control of the holy city, the Temple Mount and the Kotel because they claim it is where Mohammad rose to heaven, which makes it the third holiest site in Islam. Of course, this is a very recent claim and there is nothing about Jerusalem in the Koran. Some people claim that the only reason that the Palestinians want Jerusalem is their continued attempt to delegitimize Judaism's historical claim to Israel.

For Jews, Jerusalem is the holy city, and the Temple Mount is the holiest site in all of Judaism. Not only did the Mount house the two Temples to God, it is where Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac and where Jacob had the dream of the ladder to Heaven. For two thousand years, Jews have prayed for a return to Jerusalem.

There are reports that the United States wants Israel to split Jerusalem with the Palestinians and give up sovereignty over the Temple Mount to the UN. This has raised the ire of the Jewish People. Polls have shown that the Israeli people are against dividing the Holy City, the majority of the Knesset is against it, protests and petitions have come from groups such as the OU and the ZOA.

Yet, the Palestinians claim that there can be no peace without handing over Jerusalem. What can Binyamin Netanyahu do to satisfy Israel, the Jewish People, and make peace with the terrorists at the same time?

Thankfully, I have a solution. Not only will it work, but I got the idea from an Iranian, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Remember last year when he suggested that we move Israel to Alaska? Well, we can do the same thing with Arab East Jerusalem — move it. And I am willing to give the Arabs a lot more options than Ahmadinejad gave the Jews. In fact, I have an entire list of cities that they can pick from to move East Jerusalem to:

  • Miami Beach, Florida: This one is a no-brainer, their third holiest city for our third holiest city (next to Jerusalem and Chevron). We will throw in the "early bird" special dinners and access to Miami's holiest site (the Fontainebleau Hotel).

  • Secaucus, New Jersey: Remember that old song "Raucus in Secaucus"? This site is perfect for them, and the best part of it is that no one in the United States will notice (except maybe New York Jet Fans, but with the way the team plays, trust me they would be much happier).

  • London, England: After all, they think Israel should be more flexible on Jerusalem; let's try and see how flexible the British can be. The good part of the solution is that Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah wouldn't have to set up satellite dishes for communications; they could use Prince Charles' ears.

  • Vatican City. When the Pope visited Israel a few weeks ago, he called for a Palestinian state even before he said "Hello Thanks for having me" to the Israeli leaders. That's why I am sure he will go for this. Besides, the Palestinian claim to Catholicism's Holy City is just as valid as their claim to Judaism's. The extra benefit of this solution is that it might help repair any remaining "bad vibes" between the Pope and Islam.

  • New York City: The "Worldwide Jewish Lobby" needs a vacation; let's let the Palestinians control the banks and media for a while.

  • Washington DC: This is probably the best solution of all. Think about it, we give away part of Washington and that will stop President Obama from coming up with any dhimmi solutions to the Middle East conflict. We know that House Speaker Pelosi would endorse this one; after all, she looked so go with her head covering when she visited Syria two years ago, and this will take the attention away from that nasty tiff she is having with the CIA.

I know that there will be protests to any of these solutions. Some may say: "How could you make up reasons to take away a city from a people who have an historic attachment, and give it to people who have no real claim to it?"

Well, let me answer those people like this:

I agree.

Maybe Mr.Bones Creator of Dry Bones put it best:

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Elias Bejjani, May 23, 2009.

My New English editorial below addresses the big lie of Hezbollah's Liberation & Resistance. Believe it or not, on May 25 each year since 2000 Lebanon has been celebrating a so-called "Liberation & Resistance Day." Sadly, this celebration commemorates a bogus event, and a phony heroism that did not actually take place.


Believe it or not, on May 25 each year since 2000 Lebanon has been celebrating a so-called "Liberation & Resistance Day." Sadly, this celebration commemorates a bogus event, and a phony heroism that did not actually take place.

On May 22, 2000 the Israeli Army unilaterally and for solely Israeli domestic reasons withdrew from the security zone of South Lebanon in accordance with UN Resolution 425. The withdrawal was a fatal Israeli decision that has inspired the Hamas terrorism acts and the on-going havoc in the Palestinian Gaza strip.

The unilateral Israeli withdrawal created a security vacuum in south Lebanon. The Syrians who were occupying Lebanon at that time and fully controlling its government, did not allow the Lebanese Army to deploy in the south and fill this vacuum after the Israeli withdrawal. Instead Syria helped the Hezbollah militia to militarily control the whole southern region, and even patrol the Israeli-Lebanese border.

It is worth mentioning that the Israeli army's withdrawal was executed without any military battles, or even minor skirmishes with Hezbollah, or the Lebanese and Syrian armies. The Syrian regime, in a bid to justify both its on going occupation of Lebanon and the avoidance of disarming Hezbollah, came up with the "Shabaa Farms occupation big lie" and declared Hezbollah a Liberator, alleging it had forced Israel to withdrawal from South Lebanon.

Syria, in the same camouflaging and devious context, dictated to both the Lebanese parliament and government to declare May 25th a National Day under the tag of "Liberation & Reistance Day".

In reality Hezbollah did not force the Israeli withdrawal, and did not play any role in the Liberation of the southern Lebanese region. In fact both Hezbollah and Syria deliberately hindered and delayed the Israeli withdrawal for more than 14 years.

Every time the Israelis called on the Lebanese government to engage in a joint, serious effort under the United Nations umbrella to ensure a safe and mutually organized withdrawal of its army from South Lebanon, the Lebanese government refused to cooperate, did not agree to deploy its army in the south, and accused the Israelis of plotting to divide and split the Syrian-Lebanese joint track. This approach to the Israeli calls was an official Syrian decision dictated to all the Lebanese puppet governments during the Syrian occupation era.

Since then, Hezbollah has been hijacking Lebanon and its people, refusing to disarm and advocating for the annihilation of Israel. This Iranian mullahs' terrorist army stationed in Lebanon, is viciously hiding behind labels of resistance, liberation and religion. Hezbollah has recklessly jeopardized the Lebanese peoples' lives, safety, security and livelihood. It has been growing bolder and bolder in the last four years and mercilessly taking the Lebanese state and the Lebanese people hostage through terrorism, force and organized crime.

Sadly, Hezbollah is systematically devouring Lebanon day after day, and piece by piece, while at the same time marginalizing all its governmental institutions in a bid to topple the Lebanese state and erect in its place a Shiite Muslim regime, a replica of the Iranian Shiite mullahs' fundamentalist republic. Meanwhile the free world and Arabic countries are totally silent, indifferent, and idly watching from far away the horrible crime unfolding without taking any practical or tangible measures to put an end to this anti-Lebanese Syria-Iranian scheme that is executed through their spearhead, the Hezbollah armed militia.

Who is to be blamed for Hezbollah's current odd and bizarre status? Definitely the Syrians who have occupied Lebanon for more than 28 years (1976-2005). During their bloody and criminal occupation, Syria helped the Iranian Hezbollah militia build a state within Lebanon and fully control the Lebanese Shiite community.

But also the majority of the Lebanese politicians, leaders, officials and clergymen share the responsibility because they were subservient and acted in a dire Dhimmitude, selfish and cowardly manner. If these so-called Lebanese leaders had been courageous and patriotic and had not appeased Hezbollah and turned a blind eye to all its vicious and human rights atrocities, intimidation tactics, crimes and expansionism schemes, this Iranian Shiite fundamentalist militia would not have been able to erect its own mini-state in the southern suburb of Beirut, and its numerous mini-cantons in the Bekaa Valley and the South; nor would Hezbollah have been able to build its mighty military power, with 70 thousand militiamen, or stockpile more than 50 thousand missiles and force the Iranian "Wilayat Al-Faqih" religious doctrine on the Lebanese Shiite community and confiscate its decision making process and freedoms.

Since Hezbollah's emergence in 1982, these politicians have been serving their own selfish interests and not the interests of the Lebanese people and the nation. They went along with Hezbollah's schemes, deluding themselves that its militia and weaponry would remain in South Lebanon and would not turn against them.

This failure to serve the people of Lebanon allowed Hezbollah to make many Lebanese and most of the Arab-Muslim countries through its terrorism propaganda to blindly swallow its big lie of theatrical, faked resistance and Liberation.

Hezbollah would not have been able refuse to disarm in 1991, like all the other Lebanese militias in accordance to the "Taef Accord," which called for the disarmament of all militias. Hezbollah would not have become a state inside the Lebanese state, and a world-wide terrorism Iranian-Syrian tool which turned against them all after its war with Israel in year 2006 and after the UN troops were deployed on the Lebanese — Israeli borders in accordance with the UN Resolution 1701.

On May 7, 2008 Hezbollah invaded Sunni Western Beirut killing and injuring in cold blood hundreds of its civilian citizens, and attempted to take over by force Mount Lebanon.

A few days ago Hezbollah's General Secretary Sheik Hassan Nasrallah called that day (May 7, 2008) a great and glorious victory for his resistance, and threatened the Lebanese that a replicate of that day will take place if they do not succumb and obey his orders.

Hezbollah is a deadly dragon that the Lebanese politicians have been allowing him to feed on sacrifices from the southern Lebanese citizens, especially on those who were living in the "Security Zone" and who fled to Israel in May 2000 after the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon. This dragon who enjoyed devouring his southern sacrifices has now turned on all the Lebanese and if they do not stand for their rights and dignity, he will keep on devouring them all one after the other.

We call on the Lebanese government, the Lebanese Parliament and on all the free and patriotic Lebanese politicians and leaders to cancel the May 25 National Day, because it is not national at all, and also to stop calling Hezbollah a resistance, put an end for its mini-state, cantons and weaponry, and secure a dignified, honorable and safe return for all the Lebanese citizens who have been taking refuge in Israel since May 2000.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 22, 2009.


The Israel Antiquities Authority recovered an improperly held papyrus from the Second Temple Period, in whose Hebrew style it was written.

It is a rare find, in that it references an historical event of known date. Thus it referred to the fourth year after the "destruction," meaning the destruction of the Second Temple. It named a woman and her town.

Oddly, the news brief did not identify from whom the papyrus was recovered
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/6).
For more evidence on ancient Jewish civilization:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d23-Palestinian-Authority-claims-Jewish-artifacts


Syria's government daily attributes the swine flu to U.S. weapons laboratories. It surmises the motive is to distract people or to make them think the economic crisis is worse than it is. Oh, laments the newspaper, how standards have fallen!

You can see, asserts the article, that Pres. Obama will not make needed change (http://www.memri.org/ — Middle E. Media Research Inst., 5/6).

The Arabs make conspiracy theory look bad. They offer no evidence for their strong accusations. Neither do they offer logic, just non-sequiturs and prejudice.

One could be amused, if they didn't have so many guns.


Former U.S. diplomats, Martin Indyk and Richard Haas claim that in his earlier stint as Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu offered Syria the entire Golan Heights. Netanyahu's former aides, Dore Gold and Shimon Shapira, deny it.

Writing to Foreign Affairs vol. 88 No. 2, they adduce evidence to the contrary. First, Netanyahu asked the U.S. Sec. of State for clarification, to make sure that a similar, verbal, but hypothetical statement by his predecessor, PM Rabin, did not bind Israel. Itamar Rabinvich, Rabin's Ambassador to the U.S. confirms Sec. Christopher's affirmation that Israel was not bound. Pres. Ford earlier had written to Rabin that great weight would be given to an Israeli need to retain the Golan. During the 1990s, successive U.S. regimes upheld Ford's commitment.

Later, Syrian President Assad repeatedly asked, via intermediaries, how much of the 12-mile wide Golan Netanyahu would retain. Netanyahu was vague. His last answer was, "Miles." (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/6). National security should not hang on verbal slips by defeatist predecessors and claims by anti-Zionist State Dept. officials.


Hizbullah was caught attempting to promote terrorist activity in Egypt. Perhaps as a result, less reported is Hizbullah's drive to end Lebanon's system of "confessional" government. That system guaranteed each sect's participation in the government, so no one sect would dominate it. The proposal would enable Hizbullah, a Shiite organization, to take over Lebanon for Iran, and turn Iran into an Islamist state. This is part of international jihad.

"The scholarly analyses that define Hizbullah as a Lebanese national movement are baseless. What Lebanese national interests are served by subversive activity in Egypt? What Lebanese interests seek the transfer of Iranian arms from Sudan and Sinai to Gaza? What national Lebanese ideology seeks to subvert the delicate sectarian structure upon which the modern Lebanese state is predicated?"

The ties between Hizbullah and Iran are both strategic, i.e., political, and religious. Britain misunderstood when it thought it could differentiate between Hizbullah's military and its political wing, and deal with the latter. Hizbullah's militia serves its politics, as when it faced down the Lebanese Army and came to dominate Lebanon unofficially
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/7).

Britain, the U.S., and anti-Zionists will make almost any rationalization to enable them to accommodate fascists, whether Nazis, Communists, or Radical Muslims. This ploy is either extremely naïve or extremely cynical and certainly is extremely perilous. It led to WWII, the worst of the Cold War, and current wars of jihad.

For more on Hizbullah's imperialist side:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d11-Hizbullah-shows-its-imperialist-side


"Taliban insurgents have used health facilities, schools and residential areas to hide and launch attacks from, thus knowingly drawing a military response from the Pakistani military," reports Amnesty International. (Salman Masood, NY Times, 5/16, A7).

In other words, the Taliban commit war crimes and they knowingly cause civilian casualties. They use those casualties to arouse people against the government, though the people should be aroused against them.

Arab terrorists have committed the same war crimes against Israel. If drawing gunfire into civilian areas is wrong against Pakistan, it is wrong against Israel.

However, the so-called international human rights organizations, including the UN, hardly worry about it. Instead, they falsely accuse Israel of committing war crimes. Being hypocritical, how ethical is their indignation against Israel?

For more on NGO bias against Israel:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d14-Did-Israel-harm-civilians-in-Gaza-unnecessarily

Roger Cohen writes Op.-Eds. for the NY Times. About his trip to Iran, he focused on its culture, making light of its official tyranny, terrorism, antisemitism, and drive for nuclear weapons. He opposes thwarting that drive. He contends that Iran's sophistication outweighs its inflammatory remarks.

Iran's Jews periodically face arrest, imprisonment, and execution on false chares of spying for Israel, for practicing Judaism, or for assisting emigration to Israel. Mr. Cohen depicts them as nevertheless content. Thus the antiques dealer who conducts services at an Isfahan synagogue told him that he's not worried about chants of "Death to Israel!" He visits Israeli relatives anyway, "but when I see something like the attack on Gaza, I demonstrate, too, as an Iranian."

The former Jewish member of parliament claimed to be more bothered by the double standard of Israel having nuclear weapons, Iran not supposed to.

Cohen did not disclose to his readers that these interviews were conducted through a government agent. The Jews knew they'd be reported for anti-regime sentiment. Nevertheless, Cohen treated their expressions of loyalty seriously and as a basis for U.S. policy on Iran. Cohen has admitted praising the regime and quoting "contented Jews" in order to undermine U.S. solidarity with Israel, menaced by Iran and its terrorist proxies.

He resents sympathy for Israel. He deems Israel as just as bad as its enemies. He accused the Israelis of wanting to "lord it over" the Arabs. Judge his moral sensitivity by his opposing most measures of Israeli self-defense. One is that invasion to halt missile attacks on Israeli cities. Another is the security fence to block suicide bombers. He opposes the widespread intelligence assessment that Iran is close to having nuclear weapons with which it would protect its terrorist proxies if not destroy Israel. Such intelligence would mar relations with Iran.

To Cohen, the problem is U.S. support for Israeli "intransigence toward Hamas and perhaps raiding Iranian nuclear facilities. Cohen writes with an agenda, as an apologist for those who threaten genocide. This is not a novel position for the NY Times (Jonathan S. Tobin, Commentary, 5/2009, p.36).

Cohen is among those whose anti-Zionism or illusory expectation of miracles of persuasion by Pres. Obama perverts their journalistic ethics. What kind of a journalist depends on deceiving readers? What kind of a case needs false argument? Cannot make his case on the merits? He can't face the truth; his own bias is too strong.

Anybody who knows the Israelis knows that they don't lord it over Arabs, they want peace with them. Unfortunately, Hamas is bigoted and genocidal. Cohen is lying about Hamas and Israel, too, with hypocritical indignation.
For more on Roger Cohen:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d23-Dealing-with-Irans-nuclear-ambition

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Maurice Ostroff, May 22, 2009.

AP's original article
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ ALeqM5hj4Q2pdqZHVVfQcbXxokISeln93QD98A6TIG2

"Prosecutor: Gaza probe goes on without Israeli OK"
By Alexander G. Higgins
Associated Press writers Frank Jordans in Geneva and Steve Weizman in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

GENEVA (AP) — A U.N. investigation into possible war crimes in Israel and Gaza will go ahead with or without Israel's cooperation, the chief investigator said Wednesday.

Israel regards the probe as "intrinsically flawed" because it was ordered by the U.N. Human Rights Council, which has an anti-Israel track record.

But Richard Goldstone, a veteran prosecutor of war crimes in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia, said he wants his team to bring a balanced approach to the January conflict and was upset that Israel has turned a deaf ear to his appeals for cooperation.

"I'm disappointed, and the members of the mission are disappointed, that we've had no positive response from the Israeli government," said Goldstone, a Jew with close ties to Israel.

He said the team wanted to start in Israel, visit the southern part of the country and town of Sderot, which was hit repeatedly by Palestinian rockets, and then enter Gaza "through the front door."

Goldstone says the team will travel to Gaza through Egypt if the Jewish state bars them.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who met with the investigators in Geneva on Wednesday, said he would press Israel to let Goldstone in.

"I expressed my strong support for his mission," Ban told The Associated Press. "I told him that I had discussed with the Israeli government, particularly President Shimon Peres."

He said he had urged Peres to extend his full cooperation for the mission.

"I have not yet received a reply directly (from the Israelis), but I am going to continue to discuss this with them," Ban said.

Israel has been at odds with the 47-nation U.N. Human Rights Council since its creation three years ago. It refused to cooperate with an earlier Gaza probe the council assigned Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu to head.

Israel has objected to the current investigation because the team has been instructed only to investigate alleged abuses by Israelis, though Goldstone says he will examine conduct by both sides.

"We think that the mandate is intrinsically flawed and defective and therefore this commission will never be able to do a proper job, whatever good intentions its head may have," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said Wednesday in Jerusalem.

He would not say whether the U.N. team members would be allowed to enter Israel.

The council has a large contingent of members from Islamic countries, and Israel regards the Geneva body as biased.

Israel launched its offensive against Gaza on Dec. 27 in a bid to halt eight years of rocket fire into its southern territory and deal a heavy blow to the Hamas militant group.

The three-week operation killed more than 1,400 Palestinians, including more than 900 civilians, according to Palestinian officials and human rights groups. It also destroyed thousands of homes and heavily damaged Gaza's infrastructure.

Israel says the death toll was lower than that and most of the dead were Hamas militants. It blames Hamas for the civilian casualties, saying the militants used schools, mosques and residential areas for cover. Thirteen Israelis were killed during the fighting.

Middle East warfare presents a new challenge to Goldstone, a trustee of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who over the years has "taken a deep interest in Israel (and) in what happens in Israel."

Goldstone, an opponent of apartheid in his native South Africa where he served as a justice of the South African Constitutional Court, was named in 1994 to be U.N. chief prosecutor for war crimes in former Yugoslavia and genocide in Rwanda.

He has been widely credited with being impartial, letting the chips fall where they may.

Goldstone said the team was still making contacts and didn't have a travel schedule yet, but needs to finish its field work by the end of June.

The independent team includes Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics; Hina Jilani, a human rights advocate from Pakistan; and Desmond Travers, a former officer in the Irish Armed Forces with expertise on international criminal investigations.

Dear Messrs. Higgins, Jordans and Weizman

RE: Your May 20 article, distributed worldwide
"Prosecutor: Gaza probe goes on without Israeli OK"

While AP's stated mission of providing accurate, balanced and informed news is in the main achieved, it is regrettable that your above story falls short of this worthy aim.

I refer to your statement that Israel refuses to cooperate with the UN investigation because it regards the probe as "intrinsically flawed" due to the UN Human Rights Council's anti-Israel track record and I trust that, on further consideration, you will agree that this statement misinforms your readers, albeit unintentionally, by being incomplete. It omits readily available, critical information that would enable readers to assess the merits of Israel's concern about the HRC's record..

Your readers deserve to be told the undeniable facts about the blatantly prejudiced nature of the HRC resolution that established the investigation. If they are to understand your report they need to know that in response to a question at a press conference on April 16, the President of the HRC, stated unambiguously that there had been no widening at all of the narrowly defined mandate of the mission.

He said categorically "There is a mandate, if you look at OP 14 [operative paragraph 14 of HRC resolution S/9-1], that spells out the mandate." (The emphasis is mine)

OP14 states that the HRC decided "..to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission"

On reading the text of OP14, no reasonable person would expect any entity to subject itself to an investigative mission whose results have been clearly anticipated in its mandate. The HRC has very openly decided in advance that ONLY Israel has committed violations and it denies the mission authority to look into possible violations by anyone else. It does not call for investigating the casus belli and does not even make the pretence of adhering to the convention of referring to violations as "alleged," until proved. Only Israel is called upon not to obstruct the process of investigation. Other parties to the conflict are evidently exempted from this requirement. All this apart from the error of referring to Gaza as occupied territory. Gaza is no longer occupied by Israel.

In placing the entire blame on Israel, the HRC ignores the fact that at a joint press conference with Egyptian Foreign Minster Ahmad Abu al-Gheit, no less than the PA chairman himself, Mahmoud Abbas, publicly stated on PA TV that Hamas was responsible for the Cast Lead violence. (A transcript is available from Palestinian Media Watch).

May I hope that you will live up to AP's mission of providing balanced news by telling your readers why Israel considers the probe to be "intrinsically flawed"?

Maurice Ostroff

Contact Maurice Ostroff by email at maurice@trendline.co.il
and visit his website: http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, May 22, 2009.

1) Curtis LeMay, the 20th century and the age of mass:

May 16th, 2009

Curtis LeMay was one of the fathers of strategic bombing. He innovated the use of mass bombing during the second world war and used it to terrible affect against Japan. His life and legacy says much about the 20th century and the era of mass destruction. It is in great contrast to the wars of the 21st century.

Warren Kozak's recently released LeMay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay reminds not only of one of America's most controversial generals but also of man whose epic use of weapons was emblematic of the 20th century. LeMay lived in the 20th century, he was born in 1906 and died in 1990. He is credited with being the father of Strategic Bombing, was called various "Old Iron Ass' and 'Bombs Away LeMay' and is credited with partially causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians through his the bombers he unleashed against Japan in 1944-1945.

LeMay became a pilot in the U.S air force in 1939 and in 1942 he was dispatched to the U.K as part of the U.S commitment to help defend England from a Nazi invasion. Although a high ranking officer he chose to personally lead most of the bombing missions that he dispatched to bomb German cities. It was here between 1942 and 1944 that he first grasped the logic of using total war and strategic bombing to destroy the economy and will of the Germans to fight the War. Transferred to the Japanese theatre in 1944 he became the 'father' of strategic bombing, ordering one bombing of Tokyo that supposedly took 100,000 lives. After the war he was in charge of the Berlin Air Lift and advocated the use of strategic bombing against North Vietnam, a tactic that eventually proved successful when Nixon unleashed it in 1972. For those opposed to his militant policies and total war approach LeMay represented all that was bad about American power and war.

But LeMay is emblematic of the 20th century. His approach to war says much about what the 20th century was and what the 21st century is not. The 20th century was a century of mass movements and mass death tolls. It was a century of extremes and social engineering. By contrast the 20th century is one of precision guided weapons, 'small wars' and even smaller death tolls. It is a century of chaotic terror organizations fighting high tech armies and it is a century where the battle of the births is more important than the battle fought with the rifle.

Whereas William T. Sherman was one of the American 'fathers' of the use of Total War in 1864 he was not emblematic of the 19th century which was merely a playground of death tolls compared to the 20th. Consider that the 20th century was brought in with the Boers languishing in British concentration camps in South Africa and the German genocide of Africans in Namibia. It ended with the savagery of Rwanda and the Balkan wars. When the century opened many of the world's peoples lived in multi-ethnic empires. When it ended most lived in nation states with porous borders. The great events of the 20th century, the Holocaust and the Cold War exist almost in a vacuum, for most of the world's peoples and most of the important events taking place today they have no connection. The rise of Islamism and China, for instance, took place completely outside of the two. Although most Westerners speak of "Nazis" all the time as a point of reference for everything from bad coffee to conflicts in far off places, they have no connection, real or imagined, to the Second World War.

It is hard to imagine that LeMay's bombers incinerated from 100,000 people or that he supposedly wounded another 450,000 and left 8 million homeless when he was done with Japan. There are still large death tolls today, such as from the Tsunami in Asia. There are still large population movements, but most of them are scripted and fabricated by a media that thrives on chaos. The supposed "100,000" Pakistani refugees from fighting in the Swat valley are but one example. Compare them to the actual 10 million refugees wandering around Europe in 1945 and the 9 million Americans under arms the same year and the ridiculousness of 'civilians may be harmed in fighting in Sri Lanka, UN warns' is apparent. The even more ridiculous shrill outcries over 8 dead children in Gaza becomes evident. The 20th century witnessed real violence and real mass movements of people. The 21st century is more the century of the whining victim than of the real victim.

Whereas in the 21st century people love to speak of diversity the 20th century, when it began, actually had diversity. Consider the cities of Odessa on the Black Sea and Vilna on the Baltic. These were cities teaming with Jews, Greeks, Roma, Tartars, Russians, Lithuanians, Germans and Poles. Today they are urban wastelands filled entirely with Ukrainians on the one hand and Lithuanians on the other. That was the result of the 20th century. We know what befell Vilna. Stalin removed the Poles in 1939. Hitler killed off the Jews. Then Stalin finished the job by removing the remaining Germans. Odessa too was despoiled. The Greeks and Germans were deported by Stalin. Hitler killed the Jews. All that remained were Ukrainians. There are few cities in the world not thus affected. While there is 'diversity' the real remnant of the 20th century is the lack of that value that so many progressives bow down to. What is perhaps more surprising is that LeMay's Toyo bombing raid where 100,000 died probably had less affect historically than the events of Sept. 11. That says much about the 20th century and much about the 21st.

2) A model success: The defeat of the Tamils:

May 17, 2009

The defeat of the Tamils and the death of their phenomenal leader is a major event. After 26 years of savage war the Tamil Tigers have been defeated. During the height of their power they controlled a great swath of Sri Lanka and even ruled their own mini-state. But following break down in a ceasefire the government launched a massive offensive in January. For the Hindu minority, who the Tamils represented, it is a tragedy, but their seeming lack of protest in front of the army offensive may show their disillusionment with what seems to have been a short-sighted and immature use of the chance at self government the Tigers once achieved.

In a damn the torpedoes approach and with a clenched fist and a determined military the Sri Lankan government has swiftly put an end to 26 years of brutal civil war in defeating the Tamil Tigers. This despite the best efforts of the 'international community' and the BBC to encourage and end to the fighting and a continuation of terrorism and murder.

The BBC was disappointed on May 17th, 2009 when it reported that units of the Sri Lankan army had linked up on the dunes in northeast Sri Lanka, destroying the last elements of the Tamil Tiger's army. The headline was 'Pleas ignored: international calls for restraint go unheeded as the war heads to a bloody conclusion.' The UN's Gordon Weiss in Sri Lanka had warned of a "bloodbath" should the army finish the job. Perhaps knowing that the West and its BBC and UN allies would never understand and applaud a military victory over a terrorist militia, Mahinda Rajapakse, the president of Sri Lanka, spoke about his victory at a conference in Jordan, where 39 years ago that country used similar tactics to destroy the Palestinian terrorist forces threatening its existence.

The BBC needed to insert its typical shrill statements about "unseen horrors" and "tens of thousands of civilians may be trapped." Then there was the "no way of knowing for" if the army's statement was true. There were "children clinging to rafts" and twenty-five thousand "starving" and "wounded" people who had escaped. There were people who "hadn't eaten for weeks" and children with "limbs blown off". There was a video that the "military claimed" was a rebel training video. There were captured Tamil Tigers, but there was "no way of knowing for sure since independent journalists are barred from the conflict zone." Oddly enough there was footage of them taken by the BBC. The BBC journalist got in one last extremism; "aid agencies have grave concern...tens of thousands are trapped facing an unimaginable hell." This was David Gramaticus's report from Colombo in Sri Lanka.

The greatness of the government's victory over the Tamils cannot be overstated. Despite all the typical innuendo about "hell" and "unseen horrors" the government pushed on using its military to its fullest. And it has won and with the victory peace may finally come to Sri Lanka's civilians. Unlike other governments the Sri Lankan government has put its people, the taxpayers and voters, those the state is supposed to protect, above the "unseen horrors" and "unimaginable hells" conjured up by the media and the UN. An analysis of the reporting of this conflict should serve as a model of how the media works to not only create conflict but to blow it out of all reasonable proportion in order to convey a sense of alarm to audiences throughout the world. The BBC which, when shown terrorist training videos and captured enemy fighters can never seem to "confirm" that they are what they are and always attribute them to some sort of innuendo strewn conspiracy with the word "claim" and quotation marks put before every sentence, seems perfectly capable of making the most shocking statements about an "unseen" horrors and "unimaginable" hells. But if they are unseen then how do we know they exist? Why is the hell not merely another "claim"? Why are there no quotes around these accusations.

The war against terrorism is not merely a war against the terrorists themselves but against the media and the UN as well. The Gordon Weisses and David Gramaticuses of the world are practitioners of the best art of Stalinistic Pravda and yellow journalism, working hard to inflame public opinion so as to allow terrorists to continue their campaigns. Sri Lanka has won the terror war, hopefully, and it remains to be seen if the world can learn from her actions or if the world will continue to be enslaved by the likes of the BBC and the UN. Sri Lanka's citizens have freed themselves of the shackles of the 'international community'. We too have nothing to lose but our chains.

Seth J. Frantzman is a graduate student in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, living in Jerusalem. Contact him at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website: http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com These essays are from Terra Incognita #85.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 21, 2009.


A UN report on Gaza accuses Israel of deliberately firing upon UN buildings.

Israel noted that the UN's report followed Israel's own investigation that concluded the opposite. The IDF report cited Hamas war crimes that made the incursion necessary; the UN report did not. The IDF attributed firing toward UN buildings to Hamas firing from alongside them; the UN held Hamas blameless [for those war crimes]. The IDF explained the complexities of combat, in which accidents and mistaken information play a role; the UN report did not. The IDF report had exculpatory evidence; the UN report ignored it. Israel provided full cooperation and evidence to the UN; Hamas did not. The UN report used Hamas testimony or testimony from Arabs under the control of Hamas (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/5).

The UN is known to prepare reports about Israel before it investigates. It acts politically, ideologically, and for aggressors. That can't make the world secure.

For a summary of an IDF investigation, see:

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d14-Did-Israel-harm-civilians-in-Gaza-unnecessarily


The King of Jordan told Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu that In order for Israel to get peace, it must: (1) Withdraw from all the territory it acquired in 1967; (2) Let the Arabs in those areas have a sovereign state; (3) End city building in Judea-Samaria; (4) Stop "unilateral" action to change the status quo; (5) Stop archeological excavation and other steps in Jerusalem that threaten Muslim and Christian holy sites or aim to drive Muslim and Christian inhabitants out; and (6) Accept the Arab initiative [which also demands that Israel let in millions of Arabs while Israel must expel hundreds of thousands of Jews] http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis.

Those are the same demands made by the PLO and Saudi extremists. Nothing is demanded of the Arabs. The implication is that terrorism is their right. Nor are those demands fair or accurate.

"Unilateral" action to change the status quo, that Oslo Accords forbid, refers to legal status changes. Israel doesn't make them. The PLO attempts to elbow its way into Jerusalem affairs, which is such a change. Israel does nothing to endanger other religions or to drive Arabs out, but the Arabs try to drive Jews out and illegally excavate on the Temple Mount, destroying ancient Jewish artifacts.

I wouldn't believe King Abdullah. See what the Arabs really want:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d4-Palestinian-Arabs-want-all-the-land


In Nazareth, Muslims greeted the arriving Pope with posters and leaflets declaring such sentiments, in non-idiomatic English, as: (1) Not believing in Islam, he will go to Hell; (2) The only god is Allah, implying the Pope's does not qualify; and (3) He is not welcome, because he is friendly with the US and Israel, tries to convert Muslims, and cursed Muhammad (David Bedein,
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/08/news/world/ doc4a0418e146df8993019064.txt, 5/9).

I did not find that exposure of ill grace by Nazareth Muslims in the NY Times. (For more on the Pope's visit:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d13-Distorting-Popes-visit-to-Israel )


U.S. lives are being saved in Iraq and Afghanistan, thanks to armor developed for its military vehicles by an Israeli company (David Bedein,
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/08/news/world/ doc4a041912a34cf401351128.txt )

Israel does much for the U.S. military. This assistance gets little coverage. The U.S. treats Israel as an impediment. Muslim Arab slander, that the U.S. fights wars in behalf of Israel, is getting accepted in academic circles. Actually: (1) Israel made no secret that it preferred that the U.S. take down the regime in Iran, rather than in Iraq; (2) Israel spared the U.S. having to go to war to rescue Jordan from Syria, some years ago, by mobilizing against a Syrian invasion of Jordan. (Jordan was plucky about it, too.)


"Dozens of European Union-based charities, such as Oxfam, routinely violate Israeli law by aiding Palestinian Authority Arabs in building illegal structures. Millions of dollars are poured into construction projects, while no attempt is made to get approval from Israel. Many projects are built on state land or on areas needed for national security."

Although the EU-based charities do not have authorization to assist illegal construction, government officials were ordered not to enforce the law against them
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/5)

So there you have it — building on state land or on areas needed for national security. It's land theft and war. But the NY Times reports the excuse that the Arabs are denied building permits by discrimination. Slander in behalf of war.

For more on illegal Arab building:
(http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d11-Jerusalem-housing--Illegality-justified)


Jerusalem Mayor Barkat has completed a 20-year master plan, started by his predecessors. It is the first revision in half a century. It features:

"An emphasis on 'greening' the city and green construction
— Affordable Housing for young people
— Development of eastern Jerusalem
— 5 Metropolitan parks, open areas, and urban nature areas
— Tourist complexes
— Conservation and preservation of historic buildings
— Hi-Tech complexes."

Stated goals are to make the city more attractive and affordable for young people, so they don't move out, as they have been doing.

The plan envisions a lake, bicycle paths, hiking paths, picnic areas, buildings with solar panels, water recycling, and green roofs, new industrial zones and job training
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/4)

Mostly secular Jews have been moving out. It's curious that they can't afford to live there, but the purportedly poorer Ultra-Orthodox Jews and the Arabs can. Arabs have been building illegally in the path of those planned civic amenities.

For more on illegal building there:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d11-Jerusalem-housing--Illegality-justified


The Israel Prize usually is awarded by Far Leftists to subversives. This year it went to Prof. Yehuda Neeman for filmmaking.

Prof. Neeman did not study filmmaking. His films reached only what personal audience he could round up. He admitted his filmmaking was a failure. The judges thought they were praising him by calling his films "subversive."

His goal is to end Jewish sovereignty. He supports that goal by advocating an end to the Law of Return for Jews and a "right of return" for millions of Arabs who hate Jews. He describes Israel as an apartheid, oppressive state that likes to kill Arabs indiscriminately. He does not describe the Arabs who do kill Jews indiscriminately. He'd let them in! He tries to discourage youths from defending Israel from Arab attacks. He exhibits no compassion for the many thousands of Israelis under siege by Hamas rockets (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/5 from
http://www.isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ Editorial%20-%20Alon%20Ben%20Shaul%20-%20Yehud

Has he compassion? He favors the aggressors over his own, victimized people.

For more on unqualified leftist academics: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d28-US-universities-firing-leftist-academic-frauds


"Israel has been rattled by signs that the Obama administration has sworn off the unstinting support of Israel that was a hallmark of the Bush years..." (Mark Landler, NY Times, 5/15, A8.) It was an editorial statement in a news report.

"Unstinting" support? Myths arise even while events remain fresh. People are poorly informed, even in this "information age." The NY Times, enmeshed in the Presidential campaign, made many statements that after the election it reversed, though without acknowledging its original misstatements. I remarked on several.

The myth that the US government was very pro-Israel obscured media recognition of Pres. Bush's later, harder line against Israel. When he switched from consulting Vice-Pres. Cheney about foreign policy, to consulting Sec. of State Rice, his anti-Israel stance became patent.

What were some of his policy changes? Sometimes he changed emphasis, and sometimes he changed directions. For one thing, he or Rice insistently demanded of Israel that it dismantle roadblocks and checkpoints. Often when Israel accommodated the demands, terrorists got through and murdered Israelis.

The Oslo accords permitted Israeli construction in the Territories, though, I forget, perhaps on Israel not to expand beyond community bounds. Bush's Road Map, however, called for not building out from settled areas, though still within community bounds. Bush's regime came to call for not building in empty lots within settled neighborhoods. Increasingly restrictive. Unstinting acceptance was given to illegal Arab building. Double standard!

Remember US insistence that Israel not sell AWACS or other weapons to certain countries? Some of those customers would not be expected to threaten US security. However, Israeli arms manufacturing competes with US ones. The US government pretended to be protecting security when it was protecting trade. That puts a moral pretext on superpower pressure.

The Bush administration adopted as its foreign policy priority the establishment of another Arab state within the core Jewish homeland. It would deprive Israel of strategic depth, secure borders, and much water, and give terrorists a base.

The Road Map expects the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) to eradicate terrorism before getting further Israeli concessions. The Administration reneged on that. Also, it gave funds to the P.A., and trained their troops. The P.A. freed terrorists.

The notion that the US gave unstinting support to Israel veers on traditional antisemitism, which holds that the Jews control world policy. Unfortunately, that notion now permeates the foreign policy establishment, of which the NY Times is a pillar.


The Universal Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty was signed by 189 states. Israel is not among them. Neither were India and Pakistan, now nuclear-armed. On the other hand, as an Israeli official pointed out, Iran, Iraq, and Libya are signatories, and they have or sought nuclear reactors. Therefore, said the official, joining that pact does not end nuclear proliferation.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller nevertheless asked Israel to join the treaty. If it did, it would be asked to give up any nuclear weapons it has (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/6).

Pres. Obama is striving for nuclear disarmament. Rogue states, however, sign treaties without complying with them. They have proved they can develop nuclear capability regardless of treaties. At least, the current treaty has such big loopholes, they seem to have been designed by Congressional lobbyists.

Considering that the world is in a state of jihad, that even before the rise of Radical Islam, Arab states would gang up on Israel, that Arab states have developed other weapons of mass-destruction, and that US policy would make Israel more vulnerable without bringing Muslim states to tolerance and peace except for a phony treaty, Israel both needs nuclear arms for enemies that it can deter and to destroy the nuclear factories of Iran, which cannot be deterred.


Although Israel still demolishes unauthorized Jewish buildings in Judea-Samaria, it has ordered a halt to demolition of unauthorized Arab buildings there.

Jewish regional councils there report that Arabs have usurped State lands or "survey lands" that are not privately owned and which the State generally comes to claim. Some of that usurped State land was used for military exercises. Oxfam and dozens of other EU-supported "charities" furnish the farm equipment for the Arab squatters (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/6). This is part of an international effort to wrest the Territories from the Jewish people.


For several years, Kuwait's ruling sheikh and assembly have stalemated. The legislature is controlled by Islamists and tribesmen. They favor welfare legislation and the retention of state-owned firms, which the sheikh wants to reduce, we are told, in order to make the economy more attractive to foreign investors. They want to change the way women are treated (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/6) to mistreatment.


Shimon Peres fostered the Oslo Accords, a form of appeasement of enemies that resulted predictably in thousands of Israeli victims of terrorism. The Accords did not bring peace. They brought an opportunity for terrorists.

Over the years, Peres has worked hard at appeasement. He brought dirty politics into it, when he undermined the first war in Lebanon, because otherwise it would bring political credit to the rival, governing party.

He urged concessions to belligerent Syria.

Now he told AIPAC that Israel supports US policy of starting negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and Syria. Well he knows that the US also has a policy on how those negotiations should end, and would bend Israel to its wishes. The ending would be further appeasement of the Arabs. Which Arabs? The ones that still hate Israel, don't keep their word, and arm for renewed war.

For whom does Peres speak? Under Israeli law, his post is ceremonial, except for the power to pardon. He is not supposed to conduct foreign policy, but he does. I thought it was a grave blunder to let him become President. I suspected that he would act outside the bounds of his office. His subversion knows no bounds. It is disturbing that Prime Minister Netanyahu allows him excessive scope. This implies that Netanyahu is in accord with Peres.

Of course, demands by the Arabs can be so truculent, that they would not be accepted even by the passive Israeli public. In those cases, Peres prudently rejects the demands.


In the first Gulf War, the U.S. put half a million troops on the ground. In the second, it sent fewer than half that many. When the U.S. defeated the Iraqi army, and then turned its own into occupiers instead of finding anti-Saddam Iraqis to run the country, defeated elements of Saddam's army launched an insurgency. So did sectarian Shiites.

To quell insurgency, many more troops are needed, because the enemy no longer concentrates its forces. The US did not have more troops. What happened to the other hundreds of thousands we used to have? That is the question apparently not being asked. The answer would affect our preparedness.

I bet that one of you knows the answer. Please share it with us.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, May 21, 2009.

This is a news item from today's Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212428027&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter


President Barack Obama agreed Wednesday to share US nuclear power technology with the oil-rich United Arab Emirates, giving his consent to a deal signed in the final days of George W. Bush's administration.

The pact now goes to Congress, which will have 90 days to amend or reject it.

The agreement creates a legal framework for the US to transfer sensitive nuclear items to the United Arab Emirates, a federation of seven Middle Eastern states that wants nuclear power to satisfy growing demand for electricity.

Although flush with oil, the emirates imports 60 percent of the natural gas they use to generate electricity. The United Arab Emerates wants to break its dependence on outside sources for its energy needs and settled on nuclear power as the best option.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 21, 2009.

The proof that the Palestinian Authority is not really working toward a state, that is.

I wrote yesterday about Palestinian Arab objections to Obama's plan to give the holy sites of Jerusalem to the UN for supervision. Today there is more.

Elements of Obama's plan, which he is going to announce in Cairo next month, have been leaked. PA officials have expressed surprise, as they weren't told anything by the Obama administration. (Abbas is scheduled to meet with Obama soon.) But now that they've seen the plan, they are voicing objections, maintaining that some portions of the proposal are completely unacceptable.

Those portions are: resettling Palestinian refugees in Arab countries, swapping lands between the future Palestinian state and Israel (which would allow retention of some settlements in exchange for land elsewhere), creating a demilitarized state, and granting the Old City of Jerusalem the status of an international city.

Said one PA official: "The Palestinian position on these issues is very clear. We insist on the right of return for all refugees on the basis of UN resolution 194, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with all of East Jerusalem, including the Old City, as its capital."

As to demilitarization and an exchange of land with Israel, these suggestions had previously been rejected.


So what we see is a total rigidity. No compromise, no flexibility. This stance — when they know full well that there are elements of their demands that Israel will never accept, such as return for all refugees and relinquishment of the Kotel to Arab control — signals clearly that achievement of a state is not their primary goal.

This tells us that, for all the rhetoric, there will be no "two state solution."


What I wonder is, how long it will take Obama to realize this. Not that he would publicly admit failure in his efforts, of course. He'll slog on, just as Condoleezza Rice did in her time. But how long will it take him to internalize the fact that the obstacle is the PA, and that he can't fix things. Here's a guy who is willing to play with them, who is viscerally on their side, who called their leader first after being inaugurated. And even for him they are not prepared to bend.

Or, put another way, they are not permitted by their ideological stance to bend. Which means their ideology is focused, ultimately, on such matters as an all-Muslim Palestine from river to sea.


A quick word about the claim that UN resolution 194 gives all the "refugees" the "right" to return. It does no such thing. For starters, it is a General Assembly resolution, and GA resolutions have no standing in international law — they are only recommendations. There is no "right of return."

For a bit more information, see:


One other factor should be mentioned here. For a long time we've been hearing with full and distinct clarity what the PA demands are. It's a litany, and we all know it: return of refugees, Jerusalem as a capital, etc. etc. But until now there has been no litany on our side — no delineation of what the red lines are for us. With Olmert all we got was a rush to show the other side, ad nauseum, how much we could bend to please them and thus make "peace" possible.

With the Netanyahu government now, I have hope that this is changing. We must be recognized as a Jewish state. We will not divide Jerusalem. We demand parameters that provide for security. Stating these positions for all the world to hear, over and over with consistency, would make a real difference.


Pressure is continuing on us to freeze all settlement growth. Clinton, in a statement on Al Jazeeera, has stated unequivocally, "All types of construction must stop."

The only construction being done in settlements (I prefer to say communities) in Judea and Samaria now are on the basis of tenders issued late last year. If further permits to build are not issued, construction will halt soon.

Netanyahu has not yet committed to a cessation of building, and it is to be hoped that he won't. This is a critically important issue that involves several factors. One is the question of where construction would be done — our government's position being that it should continue in major settlement blocs which we intend to retain. This is what's key: it's a declaration of our intention to not, under any circumstances, move back to pre-'67 lines. Then there is a distinction being made between natural growth — which means additions for growing families, etc., and additional growth, which means construction for new people to move into the communities. In both instances, the borders of the communities would not be extended — growth would be internal.

I have it from an impeccably reliable source that certain key members of the Netanyahu government are saying they want to see both sorts of construction sustained.


Netanyahu has announced that four working groups with the US have been established: on Iran, strategic issues, diplomatic process and bringing in other Arab countries.

The Washington Times, in an exclusive with regard to the group on Iran, said it would provide the "U.S. a clear channel for communicating with the new Israeli government and a vehicle for keeping tabs on any military contingency plans Israel might make if diplomacy fails." This group "would begin to examine contingency plans now in case Iran continues a nuclear weapons program." The Times suggests that this group might be a vehicle for renewing Israeli requests for certain equipment, such as bunker busters, that were left pending at the end of the last administration.

Netanyahu has made a statement, not clarified, regarding "strategic agreements" between Israel and the US that have been reapproved by Obama.

It is altogether unclear to me at this point whether there will be discussion on settlements within the strategic arrangements group.

Work within the groups has already begun.


The greatest impediment to government policies with regard to settlements is Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who has been carrying on about illegal outposts.

Today security forces demolished a small outpost called Maoz Esther outside of Kochav Hashachar in Samaria. A resident of the outpost — which is named for a victim of terror — said 40 people lived there and would begin rebuilding immediately. This is not the first time that this outpost has been taken down by authorities and put up again. More power to those who have the courage and staying power to do this!


The thought that immediately occurs, of course, is that this may be a good-cop/bad-cop routine with Barak playing bad-cop within the new government. Perhaps. Today's demolition very much seems a sop of sorts to Clinton's demand. Haaretz certainly thinks this is the case — the price Netanyahu agreed to pay in return for some Obama statements on Iran.

But it also is a direct expression of Barak's own ideology. He is mightily frustrated by Netanyahu's refusal to say "two-state solution." And Barak himself has come out with a statement that what he did at Maoz Esther had nothing to do with the US, but was how a nation of law had to function with regard to illegal building. If truth be told, Barak did precisely the same thing before.

I've already cited the fact that other members of the government, including one influential minister, are solidly in favor of continuing the building in the settlements. So I don't believe the situation can be summed up simplistically. We need to watch it.

Head of Peace Now, Yariv Oppenheimer, called Maoz Esther a "puny outpost," and its demolition a "public relations exercise." This tells us something, perhaps.


My own ideology would oppose taking down a single building. But — unlike some purists who write to me — I have a pragmatic streak as well, and recognize that we're operating in a tough situation. If taking down a couple of small outposts gives Obama the cover he needs to say that there is "progress," and then we proceed with other actions that protect our larger interest here, or secure statements from Obama that are helpful, this will hardly be an unbearable price to pay.

The trick is to avoid that slippery slope, so that we don't end up conceding so much that it becomes an unbearable, or even unacceptable, price. And vigilance is the watchword.


Surprisingly, and undoubtedly at Obama's urging, Netanyahu has agreed to begin negotiations with Syria. Cannot say this is a pleasing piece of news. However, he clarified that there would be no conditions going in, and Assad has repeatedly said that he'll negotiate only if we agree in advance to give back the Golan. If this commitment is not made, he may not agree to sit with us in any event. And this exposes Syria's lack of good intent.


Good news is that the US will provide the funding for the development and production of the Arrow 3 anti-missile system — which will take on longer range missiles than the Arrow system currently in use here. It will be able to intercept missiles at a higher altitude and greater distance from Israel than the current system.

There has been concern here that with the economic crisis in the States, this program would be abandoned. But it has turned out to not be the case.


My friends, I dropped the ball yesterday and must issue a correction. I wrote about the many members of Congress who recently supported us by sending Obama a letter that said, "peace cannot come while terrorism continues to wrack Israel."

This is true enough, but everything is in the spin. And the spin in the news article from which I drew this blinded me to the larger context. The letter sent to the president was one of the letters endorsing a two state solution that had been actively promoted by AIPAC. The message more broadly was that the two-state solution wouldn't be possible until terrorism stopped. Not good enough.


"The Good News Corner"

At official ceremonies today marking Yom Yerushalayim, Prime Minister Netanyahu said:

"Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours. It will never again be partitioned and divided."

A clear and powerful message.

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat then reiterated this:

"With the world examining us let it be said here: We will never divide Jerusalem."

Amen and Amen.

Jerusalem Day celebrations in...

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yid with Lid, May 21, 2009.

Tonight starts Yom Yerushalayim, Jerusalem Day. It celebrates the day in 1967 that the IDF returned the Old Jerusalem to Jewish hands.

Jews were denied access to the Holy sites in the Old City Jerusalem since 1948, when Jordan took it over during the War of Independence. In the intervening 19 years the Jordanians waged systematic destruction, desecration and looting of Jewish sites.

57 ancient synagogues (the oldest dated to the 13th century), libraries and centers of religious study were ransacked and 12 were totally and deliberately destroyed. Those that remained standing were defaced, used for housing of both people and animals. Judiasm's Holiest site, the Temple Mount, became a slum.

On the Mount of Olives, the Jordanians removed 38,000 tombstones from the ancient cemetery and used them as paving stones for roads and as construction material in Jordanian Army camps, including use as latrines. When the area was recaptured by Israel in 1967, graves were found open with the bones scattered. Parts of the cemetery were converted into parking lots, a filling station, and an asphalt road was built to cut through it. The Intercontinental Hotel was built at the top of the cemetery. Sadar Khalil, appointed by the Jordanian government as the official caretaker of the cemetery, built his home on the grounds using the stones robbed from graves.
( http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_holysites.php).

Since that day in 1967, the Muslims have been trying to reclaim Jerusalem's Holy Sites, not because of any 'religious ties" but to de-legitimize the Jewish claims to the city.

The sad part of today's struggle is there might not have been as fierce an Muslim claim to the city if Moshe Dayan didn't give away the Temple Mount almost 42 years ago.

When Israel gained possession of the Temple compound during the Six Day War, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol wanted to create a multi-faith council to run the compound. Dayan thought it should remain in Muslim possession. In his biography Dayan clearly stated that the last thing he wanted was the Beit Hamikdash rebuilt. So Dayan "gave" the Temple Mount back to the Arabs because he wanted to make sure that there wouldn't be a third Temple. There was nothing that Prime Minister Eshkol could do about it, after all Moshe Dayan, was a war hero.

It would have so much extra meaning if Israel could celebrate Yom Yerushalayim with a beautiful ceremony where the two Temples stood, on top of the Temple Mount, but that isn't possible because of Dayan. In fact thanks to the General, only Muslims are allowed to pray on top of the Temple mount.

The Jewish people have lost possession of the the Temple Mount only three times since King David purchased the site 30 centuries ago. Only once, was the site given away voluntarily. Dayan will go down in history as the man who gave away the Temple Mount and gave the Muslims the opportunity to make Jerusalem an Issue:

.........."It's true," Eldad said, "that the original sin was when the Jewish People, immediately after the Six Day War in 1967, ceded its hold on the Temple Mount in an unholy alliance between the Chief Rabbinate and Moshe Dayan — each side for its own reasons — but now the danger is that the Arab sovereignty on the Temple Mount will spill over to the Western Wall plaza, and from there to other places."

Then-Defense Minister Dayan, just days after Israel's liberation of the Old City, informed the Muslims running the Temple Mount that they could continue to run the mosques there — and later went further by preventing Jewish prayer all over the Mount.

"It was evident that if we did not prevent Jews from praying in what was now a mosque compound," Dayan later wrote, "matters would get out of hand and lead to a religious clash... As an added precaution, I told the chief of staff to order the chief army chaplain to remove the branch office he had established in the building which adjoins the mosque compound."Source Israel National News

This comes from the Yid with Lid website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Eidelberg, May 21, 2009.

Are you sick and tired, as I am, of the world telling Israel what to do and what not to do? Then why not urge Israel's government to go on the offensive? For starters, here is what I would like to see as "breaking news":

1) Israel demands that all Arab and Islamic states be given 30 days to conform to the democratic principles of the United Nations Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights or be expelled from the world body.

2) Israel demands that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be indicted for violating international law by vowing to "wipe Israel off the map."

3) Israel demands that the PLO-Palestinian Authority be dissolved on the grounds that its constitution calls for the annihilation of Israel, a member of the United Nations.

4) Israel demands that the United States cease violating international law by funding the PLO-Palestinian Authority since the latter is a consortium of terrorist organizations.

5) Israel demands that the United States cease violating international law by training Palestinian terrorists.

6) Israel demands the United States cease violating international law by harboring Hezbollah terrorist cells.

7) Israel demands that the Government of the United States acknowledge the following facts and fulfill their legal obligations:

In 1920, after World War I had ended, the Allied Supreme Council assembled at San Remo, Italy and decided, in accordance with the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, to assign the Mandate for the establishment of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine to Great Britain. This turned the right of the Jewish people over Eretz Israel into a right recognized by international law, recognized by the 52 members of the League of Nations. That right was affirmed by the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine. The Convention was ratified by the United States Senate and subsequently proclaimed by President Calvin Coolidge on December 5, 1925. This treaty remains in force to this day as the supreme law of the land. The letter and spirit of this treaty is violated when American officials insist on the establishment of a Palestinian state in the Land of Israel.

Professor Paul Eidelberg is an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is the founder and president of The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. He has written on the Arab-Israel conflict and on Judaism. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Jake Levi, May 21, 2009.

This was written by Hillel Fendel, Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com).


(IsraelNN.com) For the second time in two months and just a day after Prime Minister Netanyahu heard U.S. President Barack Obama say "no more settlements," police forces have destroyed the start-up community of Maoz Esther.

The outpost is located on a hilltop just outside Kochav HaShachar in eastern Binyamin, north of Jerusalem. Authorities say the outpost, encompassed by barren hills to the east and west, and illegal Bedouin squatter encampments encroaching to the north, is "illegal."

The several dozen police and Border Guard officers took less than an hour to destroy the five houses and synagogue, reported Israel National News' Yehuda Lev Kay from the site. Their job was somewhat harder this time than two months ago, when they had to destroy only two houses and a synagogue. Then, the residents began rebuilding within hours after the destruction, and plan to do the same again today.

The houses were made of wood, concrete and aluminum. The twice-destroyed synagogue was dedicated in memory of Yonadav Chaim Hirschfeld, 19, of Kochav HaShachar, who was murdered in the Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav massacre some 15 months ago.

The forces were more considerate of private belongings than they were in the past, removing them from the houses before destroying the structures. One car was taken from the site on a truck.

Shame, No Violence

"There is no violence, nor does it look like there will be any," Kay reported. "Some people stood on top of the synagogue, but they have been taken down. One woman went up to a policeman with a beard and a hat, and said, 'I assume you have a kippah under that hat.' When he answered in the affirmative, she said, 'Aren't you ashamed of what you're doing?', and he responded, 'You don't know how much,' and walked away."

Emunah, one of the young women whose home was destroyed for the second time in two months, said afterwards, "We don't have the luxury of mourning our loss for more than an hour or two. Just like last time, we hope very much to be able to rebuild, with G-d's help. But, just like last time, we also need contributions."

Contributions can be sent to "Maoz Esther, Kochav HaShachar, Eastern Binyamin, Israel, 90641".

Contact Jake Levi at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by M.S. Kramer, May 21, 2009.

Part 1

I am frequently asked questions about the situation in Israel by my subscribers. Although they read my articles and others, most of the information on offer is from the mainstream media. I'm sorry to say that the mainstream media very often presents Israel as the aggressor. Whether this is because of a "liberal agenda" I can't say. But I do believe that if your chief source of information about the Middle East is the New York Times, then you're getting a view antagonistic to Zionism and Jewish Israelis. The widely-read "Times" routinely downgrades stories about harm to Israel, features articles blaming Israel (often prematurely) and buries news about terrorism against Jews. (The archetypal example of this is from 1943, when the first stories about the slaughter of Jews in Austria and Italy appeared on pages 6 and 35 respectively in the "Times". Nor was much editorial space allotted to the subject, even after it was clear that the ''atrocity stories'' were not exaggerations.)

Below are some interesting questions I've recently been asked, with my replies.

Question: I think what may be a fundamental obstacle to movement towards peace, notwithstanding the intransigent militancy of those who will never accept Israel, is the continuation of new settlements in the West Bank. This fuels the fire and gives the militants ammo for their cause. Am I wrong about settlements being a huge obstacle to peace?

Reply: Regarding the settlements, the sad truth is that while they may be an irritant, they are not the basic cause of Arab militancy. That comes from the refusal of the Arabs to accept a Jewish state on "Arab land". According to the Koran, Jews and Christians are both infidels and can only co-exist with Muslims if they are in a lower position — classified as "dhimmis". Blaming hostilities on the settlements ignores the fact that the Arabs never accepted a Jewish state on any part of Palestine, long before the Six Day War of 1967. There were no settlements before then, unless one counts Tel Aviv and all other Jewish communities in Israel as "settlements". That's how the Arabs see it.

Question: Regarding the West Bank, I understand what you've said: The militants will never rest until Israel is gone. But peace agreements are hammered out on the world stage, and the world, and moderate Arabs and Palestinians, are perhaps rightfully upset by the continued illegal settlement of the West Bank. If Israel stopped this, much of the world and moderate Arabs might be able to arrange a peace, despite the militants. So from many reasonable people's view, the West Bank is the issue.

Reply: Proof that the West Bank isn't the issue: the Arabs fought the Jews from before Israel's independence in 1948, because they considered any Jewish sovereignty illegal, and contrary to the will of Allah. The "illegal settlements" came after 1967, when the PLO and its components were already conducting a terror war with Israel. The terror war, which escalated after Israel withdrew all its citizens and the IDF from Gaza in 2006, proves the point.

I know that almost all of the media describe anything beyond the 1949 armistice line (Green Line) as "illegal". However, armistice lines are definitely not borders, by anyone's definition. The Geneva Convention of 1949 (Article 49), commonly used to indict Israel, is not relevant to the situation, unless one does legal back-flips (applicable only to Israel) to try to make it appear relevant. When Israel fought the defensive Six Day War of 1967, no nation had clear, legal rights to the West Bank or Gaza. From 1948, when Britain gave up the Palestine Mandate, until 1967, Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip. Prior to Britain's thirty-year control over Palestine (1918-1948), for 400 years all of Palestine had been included in the Ottoman Empire province of Syria. At no time had there ever been an independent state of "Palestine". Therefore, "disputed territory" is a much more accurate definition for the West Bank and Gaza than "occupied territory".

Question: But aren't the Israeli settlements there to annex the land as part of an expanded Israel, instead of a Palestinian state?

Reply: That's partially true, along with the security factor. But another reason is that Jews want to build on available land. You can't ignore the fact that the British contradicted their mandate to encourage the rebuilding of the Jewish home in Palestine by restricting Jewish settlement in large swaths of the territory. Britain also severed 78% (!) of Palestine almost immediately upon receiving the Mandate for Palestine and created the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (later Jordan) to promote British foreign policy.

Many Israelis reject cooperating with the Palestinians to organize a Judenrein (Jew-free) state. Can you imagine a democracy that is 100% of a particular ethnicity? Israel is 20% Arab, and its citizens include people from North and South America, Europe, Africa, Arab countries, and Asia. Since the Arabs won't contemplate a similar situation in "Palestine", with Jews living within its borders, the borders must be set to accommodate people like us — the Kramer family. We live nine miles from the Mediterranean, Israel's narrowest sector. To tell me I'm living on "Arab land" is nonsense.

Question: Then why did Israel return the Sinai? Does Israel still hold the Golan Heights?

Reply: The Sinai was not part of Palestine (Eretz Israel), ever. Jews did live there sporadically, but it was clearly part of Egypt. Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt as part of a peace treaty which has held for thirty years.

Israel holds the Golan and most Israelis don't want to give it up, preferring the status quo. For 21 years, from 1946 to 1967, the Golan was part of "Syria", which is a 20th century European invention — as are Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. All these countries were delineated by Britain and France after WWII, after a long period of European colonialism in the region. The Golan Heights was actually included in the Palestine Mandate, but Britain quickly traded it to France, where it became part of the Syria Mandate. When Israel conquered the Golan Heights in the defensive Six Day War of 1967, no Syrians were displaced. The resident Druse population still lives there. Needless to say, the shelling of Israelis in the Galilee region below the Golan Heights ended for good in 1967.

Part 2

Below are some more interesting questions I've recently been asked, with my replies.

Question: If the West Bank is going to be part of the two-state solution, how will that work with a patchwork of Arab and Jewish settlements?

Reply: Many existing states are patchworks composed of more than one population, such as Belgium and Switzerland. But Arabs won't live in peace with Jews alongside of them. In contrast, 20% of Israelis are Arab, who often reside in their own towns and cities. The "Triangle" region of Israel, north of where I live, consists of more than a dozen Israel-Arab towns, with some Jewish communities sharing the region — a patchwork of Arabs and Jews. The immediate problem for the Palestinians is their inability to coexist among themselves, as is evident from the violence between Hamas and Fatah.

Question: The "New York Times" has featured the flattening of olive groves and even of whole neighborhoods in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. The devastation seems vindictive. The same paper has shown damages to Israeli property from rockets on its back pages, but to the average person this damage is trivial compared to the destruction of Gaza. What's the real story?

Reply: I've seen many of these same pictures. Israel's answer to all these accusations should be "Blame Hamas". Their soldiers fight in mufti (civilian clothing) and place themselves behind or among civilians. They store ammo and shoot rifles and rockets from crowded neighborhoods, schools, mosques, hospitals, and even UN buildings. If Israel can't fire back, then the logical conclusion is that the terrorists will always win, because they are untouchable. We took the rocket fire for 8 years (imagine that happening in your community!) and when we finally fought back, we were blamed for the resulting destruction. Each of those 6000 or more rockets, filled with nuts and bolts for maximum casualties, was fired unaimed into Israel from Gaza, with the object of killing or maiming as many Israelis as possible. Most attacks were during the morning, when children were on the way to, or in, school. The psychological damage alone has been devastating, but there have been many injuries and deaths besides.

Gazan gunmen hide among olive trees and vegetation to ambush our troops. Israel's leaders have finally decided, after numerous ambushes, that it's better to level a home or an area from which we are fired upon, than to send in our troops just to protect civilians. This is not a violation of international war. I'm sure you know our military dropped leaflets, made mobile and land line phone calls to Gazan homes, and went out of our way to warn civilians in advance of attacks. And let's not forget the Gazans voted in Hamas and cheered them on enthusiastically. A price must be paid.

Many Israelis believe that our tactics in Operation Cast Lead served the strategy of restoring our deterrence, after we waited so long to react that Hamas concluded that they could continue rocketing us without massive retaliation. Believe me, they'll think twice before chancing this again, as Hezbollah learned during the Second Lebanon War. (Very few rockets have been fired since the end of the war.) Many Israelis and others think that we should have gone farther into Gaza City, to have had even more impact. Why? Because Hamas is rearming and still planning to annihilate us!

Question: I'm interested to learn more about your idea of a West Bank confederation. But who would rule it? If Jordan provides leadership, how would Jews continue to live there? As you point out, Arabs cannot tolerate Jews on land they see as theirs. If Israel retains the West Bank, how could it let all the Palestinians live there?

Reply: A West Bank confederation is an old idea that has lately regained adherents. Jordan's King Abdullah would provide leadership. The larger Israeli settlements, like ours, would be included in Israel. The Palestinians would have most of the West Bank, plus Jordan. King Abdullah legitimately fears having more Palestinians to rule, since Jordan is currently more than two-thirds Palestinian. But since Abdullah is propped up by America and Israel, maybe he'll "change his mind" about it. The confederation would give the Palestinians 90% of the original Mandate for Palestine, since Jordan already comprises 78% of the Mandate.) Israel constitutes less than a half per cent of "Arabia". The West Bank-Jordan confederation would be almost five times larger than Israel.

Question: I've read on and on about what's wrong with the proposed solutions for Israelis and Palestinians, and everyone's delusions. I must have missed something. What's your solution?

Reply: The answer is hard for the West to take. It may be that the precious Palestinians won't have a state, at least not yet. It's the "solution" that the Kurds, the Basques, the Tamils, and others live with. The Palestinians are divided between nationalists and Islamists who don't cooperate with each other, to say the least. The two areas, Gaza and the West Bank, are separated by Israel, a further complication. Two autonomous areas might be the best choice for now, absent some sort of Arab confederation.

It's obvious that the West wants to quiet down the Muslims by placating them with a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, they're not ready to have one. An effort to engage with Hamas, by softening the conditions which excluded them from negotiations, won't work. Israel can't be forced to sign a "peace treaty" with an entity that exists solely to bring about Israel's destruction.

The Muslim problem won't go away with the creation of a Palestinian state anyway. The huge number of unemployed, disaffected young Arab men is problem #1. What will they do if they fester in their home countries? What will they do if they manage to get to Western countries, where they have become problematic for the native Europeans (at least the ones who don't bond with them)? Consider the probability that there will be as many as 100 million young Arabs emigrating from Arab countries in the next two decades.

Some problems don't have answers, short of something revolutionary. That's what the West has to worry about — not giving the Palestinians a state that mortally threatens Israel, America's closest ally in the Middle East. The Palestinians may deserve a state, as do some of the other nationalities mentioned above. But they don't deserve it yet. The status quo must remain until the Palestinians show that they can live peacefully with their law-abiding neighbor, Israel. Israelis already favor a 2-state solution. It's the Palestinians and other Arabs who have to learn to live with a Jewish state in the Middle East.

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, May 20, 2009.

This was written by Tony Blankley and it appeared today in Jewish World Review.


Upon hearing of the death of a Turkish ambassador, the serpentine French diplomat Talleyrand was reputed to have responded, "I wonder what he meant by that." With that level of skepticism in mind, all shrewd diplomats and observers of diplomacy look beneath the surface language and actions of diplomacy to the underlying realities that will shape negotiations, because, as professor Angelo Codevilla explains, effective diplomacy is, at its core, a "verbal representation of a persuasive reality. Indubitable reality itself convinces — sometimes even without verbal expression, or through nonverbal expression."

As we enter this new round of U.S.-Israeli-Arab negotiations, one needs to keep firmly in mind the political realities that will either undergird or undermine the talks.

In the lead-up to the current round of meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama, the constantly repeated background theme has been that now is the vital moment to actually bring into being an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. As I discussed in this space last week, President Obama is being put under extraordinary pressure — both by Arab leaders and commentators and by his own White House staff — to be personally responsible for the success or failure of these talks.

And in turn, Prime Minister Netanyahu is coming under even greater pressure to comply with the United States' proposed path to a "peace accord," the foundation of which is a two-state solution, that is to say, two sovereign nations side by side: Israel and a Palestinian state.

The Arab states never have been more united in preparing the diplomatic groundwork for these talks. In advance of this week's Washington talks, the Arab states have let it be known that they will "reward" Israel with "confidence-building measures" — as Nader Dahabi, Jordan's prime minister, said last weekend at a World Economic Forum in Jordan — should Israel cooperate in the negotiations. But the premise of Arab cooperation includes adherence to the key provisions of the Saudi-sponsored plan: giving Palestinian refugees the right to return to Israel and having the Israeli borders return to how they were before the 1967 war.

Now comes reality onto the stage to darken the dreams of would-be peacemakers. As shrewd old Talleyrand also once said, "I know where there is more wisdom than is found in Napoleon, Voltaire, or all the ministers present and to come — in public opinion." So consider this dismal data from the authoritative polling of the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project. The report tabulated the response to this key question: "Which statement comes closest to your opinion? 1) A way can be found for the state of Israel to exist so that the rights and needs of the Palestinian people are taken care of OR, 2) the rights and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as the state of Israel exists?"

The specific percentages are as follows, with the key results being, by 77 to 16 percent, Palestinians don't believe they can live side by side with Israel, while, by 61 to 31 percent, Israelis do believe they can live side by side with a Palestinian state. Note that all the Arab states are very negative and all the Western states (plus Israel) are quite positive for a two-state solution.

  • United States: 1) 67 percent, 2) 12 percent.
  • France: 1) 82 percent, 2) 16 percent.
  • Germany: 1) 80 percent, 2) 11 percent.
  • Sweden: 1) 65 percent, 2) 12 percent.
  • Britain: 1) 60 percent, 2) 12 percent.
  • Israel: 1) 61 percent, 2) 31 percent.
  • Morocco: 1) 23 percent, 2) 47 percent.
  • Kuwait: 1) 21 percent, 2) 73 percent.
  • Egypt: 1) 18 percent, 2) 80 percent.
  • Jordan: 1) 17 percent, 2) 78 percent.
  • Palestinian territories: 1) 16 percent, 2) 77 percent.

Keep in mind, also, that after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed a Sinai peace treaty with Israel, in October 1981 he was assassinated during a military parade in Cairo. A fatwa authorizing the assassination had been issued by Omar Abdel-Rahman, a cleric later convicted in the U.S. for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

It would take an unusually courageous leader to sign a peace treaty and his own death warrant in one document. And lest there be any doubt as to the acceptability of a peace treaty that doesn't include refugees' being given the right to return (which would turn Israel into a Muslim-majority, rather than Jewish-majority, state), consider the writing this week in the Los Angeles Times of Mustafa Barghouthi, a member of the Palestinian Parliament, a candidate for president in 2005, and currently secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative:

"Palestinians in the occupied territories have no standing to sign away the rights of the Palestinian citizens of Israel in order to get Israel to the negotiating table. To tell the truth, we don't believe that Israel can be a true democracy and an exclusivist Jewish state at the same time."

As long as fewer than 2 in 10 Arabs, both Palestinian and all others, believe in Israel's right to exist as a nation with a Jewish majority, there can be no successful peace based on a two-state solution. That is the reality that no diplomacy can change.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 20, 2009.


Senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, John L. Allen, Jr., suggests how the Pope can bring Palestinian Authority and Israel to peace.

He asserted that Ariel Sharon's 2000 visit to Jerusalem's Temple Mount "helped set off the second Intifada." [No. An official of the Palestinian Authority admitted that Arafat had prepared that war months earlier. His agents agitated for violence. The visit was used as a pretext by Muslim inciters, without justification.]

Mr. Allen suggests that the Pope "emphasize that the 'two-state solution' to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reflects a global moral consensus." The Palestinian Arabs have a "natural right to sovereignty." [Palestinian Arabs already have sovereignty in Jordan. The Palestine Mandate recognizes the Jewish right to statehood in their homeland, which includes the Territories. The Palestinian Arabs have been aggressors and bigots, part of Radical Islam's jihad against Christianity and even civilization. They won't make peace; deserve nothing.]

For balance, the Pope would "insist that the Palestinians reject extremist elements within their leadership," as part of reforming Islam. [How would he insist?" The PLO already agreed to peace, but constantly make war or prepare for it. The US also "insists," but gives them subsidies without requiring that they keep agreements. Suggesting reform has been mere lip service.]

Inter-faith reconciliation produced the Vatican-Arab League pact. [That pact is secret. Is it reconciliation or a temporary coalition against Israel?]

Further, the Pope should press Palestinian Muslims to "embrace religious freedom, and Israel's right to exist." [How would he persuade Islamist fanatics, indoctrinated in murderous bigotry against the Pope as well as the Jews?]

The Pope should support Christians in the Holy Land, who have fallen from 20% of the Arab population to under 2 percent, "because of tremendous emigration." [The author doesn't explain the emigration. It is due to persecution by Muslims.]

"Historically, Arab Christians have promoted a pluralistic version of society, standing between resurgent Islamic fundamentalism and ultranationalist strains in Judaism." [By not identifying "ultranationalist Judaism," he seems to defame. Actually, some Christians were anti-Jewish Arab leaders. Although they presented themselves as Arab nationalists, the Arab Muslims do not spare them.]

Benedict can further promote peace "by urging the leaders he meets with to bring Iran on board in all regional discussions." [Unrealistic. The Arabs fear Iran.]

Catholicism has a lot in common with the forms of Shiism, such as saintly intercessors, etc.." (NY Times, 5/6, Op.-Ed."

Common forms don't stop Muslim enmity. Judaism has more similarities, but that doesn't make Islam tolerant of it.

The notion that the Pope can be an impartial mediator overlooks the fact that the Vatican has religious and territorial interests of its own, though it fails to champion the persecuted Christians in the Mideast. See:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d5-What-is-the-Vatican-up-to-in-Israel


A Washington Post reporter commented on the truce plan by Hamas chief, Meshaal. Meshaal offered Israel a 10-year truce if Israel made concessions that risked its national security.

The comment was that the plan was the same as Arafat's. It was called a peace plan, but really was a war plan (Raleigh Observer, 5/8).

Glad to see a liberal newspaper savvy about the traditional Islamic ruse of truces. Israel wouldn't last the 10 years, if it gave up strategic borders and much of its water, and if it admitted millions of hostile Arabs, as Meshaal demanded.


The Palestinian Center For Human Rights protested the death sentence that a military court handed down for a resident of the Palestinian Authority, accused of selling land to a Jew.

The protest was over: (1) Having a military court not approved by the legislature; (2) Not allowing for a fair, independent appeal; (3) Not conforming to international human rights agreements; and (4) Capital punishment.

The Center clarified — it "Reiterates that abolishing the death penalty does not imply leniency towards dangerous criminals, who must be subjected to punishment that acts as a deterrent but also maintains human dignity."
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/3.)

In other words, it does not object to discrimination against Jews nor find international human rights agreements opposed to such apartheid. In fact, it implies that Arabs who sell land to Jews are "dangerous criminals." So much for the human rights outlook of the Palestinian Center For Human Rights!


"Last year, some prominent American Jews, asserting that Aipac's generally down-the-line support of Israeli policy was neither helpful to Israel nor wise, funded a counter-group called J. Street. "J Street...is vocal about supporting lawmakers who might disagree with some Israeli policies. Aipac officials have treated J Street as if it were lint." Neil A. Lewis, NY Times, 5/5, A10.)

The point clearly made is that AIPAC is subservient to Israeli policy. However, AIPAC is promoting the Obama line of extensive territorial concession to the Palestinian Authority now, which PM Netanyahu said he opposes.


"On Fiery Birth of Israel, Memories of 2 Sides Speak," reads the NY Times headline. Jews and then Arabs have begun recording testimony from people present when Jewish statehood was reconstituted in Israel. [Unmentioned is already extensive historical and personal record.]

An Arab woman claims that her Galilee village's women fled the arrival of Jewish militias. [Where were the men? Probably fighting. Why did the non-combatant women flee? Probably out of fear of punishment for their men's attacks. Israelis did not operate like that. The newspaper account fails to differentiate between justified and unwarranted flight. It unfairly leaves open the possibility that Arab women had something to fear from Jewish victors.]

[The article also fails to explain that Jews did have reason to fear Arab victors. The Arab press called for massacre. When the Egyptian army conquered kibbutzim in the Negev, it executed the survivors. The 12,000 Arabs in Safed, Galilee, suddenly besieged the 1,200 peaceful Jews there. They broke down house-after-house, seeking to get at the Jews. Israeli commandos come to a timely rescue, whereupon the whole Arab community fled. That's the way it was: the Arabs started war, later stasted losing, and fled.]

The personal narratives were started "As Israel celebrated its Independence Day last month — an event that the Palestinians call the nakba, he catastrophe..." [Did you ever come across such even-handedness in describing a war that: (1) started with one religious group, the Jews, asserting sovereignty over a portion of a non-sovereign territory, assuring the other religious group that it may stay in the new country, and accepting that the other group may become sovereign in the rest of that territory; and (2) The other group, mostly Muslim Arabs, who already had about 15 states, one of them in Palestine, refusing to let the Jews have any sovereignty in their ancient homeland as international law recommended, and were joined by foreign Arabs with the declared purpose of genocide? Attempts at genocide against other than the Jewish people don't get this tender equivalency.

[Fortunately, the Arabs lost. What temerity of them to call their failed attempt at genocide a catastrophe! With what reverence the Times uses the Arab term for catastrophe? It doesn't cite the Hebrew term for Israeli independence. Is it giving lessons in Arabic? Times anti-Zionist bias at work.]

[Israelis are not accurate in calling it a war for independence. It was a defense against Arab subjugation. The article also uses the inaccurate Israeli term for smuggling immigrants into Mandatory Palestine, "illegal." It was clandestine. The British prohibition of Jewish immigration was illegal; it violated the Mandate. The Times errs in describing the UN resolution as being for the partition of "Palestine." Palestine already had been partitioned; the Arabs got the 79% of it across the Jordan River. If the Times admitted this, fewer would sympathize with the Palestinian Arabs and the claim that they don't have their own state, and who commit aggression against the Jews based on that false pretext.]

"Some Palestinians fled, hoping to return once the fighting ended; others were evacuated or saw their villages destroyed by the Israeli forces. The different sides tell vastly different stories..."

[Put that way, readers get no sense of proportion of flight and expulsion. Actually, the preponderant majority of refugees fled. If the newspaper explained the true proportion, it would be harder to rouse indignation against Zionism. So it isn't mentioned. That is not honest or informative reporting on an issue affecting the legitimacy of each side's case.]

What are the stakes in which side's narrative is believed? An Arab archivist explains that "The question of who is responsible for Palestinian refugees bears directly on the contentious issue of whether they should be allowed to return to within Israel's borders." (5/18, A9.) This is war by propaganda. By equating the unequal side with the ethical side, and by its omissions, the Times takes sides.

Nor is the question of who is responsible the whole answer. Other factors are the Arab aggression in 1947; its purpose; the invading generals' order to the Arabs to flee; the voluntary Arab flight before that; the Zionists' civilized behavior in urging Arabs to stay and in peace; the savage Arab behavior, as when the Palestinian Arabs massacred medical personnel; the fact that only a small number of Arabs called refugees actually lived there then; and the Arab states' expulsion of about 900,000 Jews, about double the number of Arab refugees. Most of the expelled Jews immigrated to Israel, where they were welcomed. All that is documented and none of it is in the newspaper account.

Another serious omission is an evaluation of the quality of Arab testimony. As a number of my articles have shown, such testimony is tendentious, manipulated, and unverified. The purpose is propaganda, not truth. Examples: (1) Right after that war, Arab leaders and media lamented their people's flight and criticized the Arab generals for prompting most of it. Later, the Arabs switched to accusing Israel of having expelled their Arabs. They expelled only a small proportion, usually for cause. (2) The Deir Yassin incident originally was described by the British and Arab witnesses as a mere battle. However, for partisan advantage, the Haganah rivals of the militias that fought there called it a massacre by those militias. Arabs then took up the cry, in which they and other anti-Zionists persist, even after the Israeli Labor Party admitted the falsity of the original accusation.

The Times presents the issue at face value, always making the Jewish side look worse.


Israel is constructing archeological parks in areas near the Old City of Jerusalem. The government is condemning unauthorized houses built by Arabs on that land. Robert H. Serry, the UN special coordinator for the Mideast, "warned the Isreali authorities 'not to take actions that could pour oil on the fire.'"

"At the same time, there is a battle for historical legitimacy. As part of that effort, archeologists are finding indisputable evidence of ancient Jewish life here. Yet Palestinian officials and institutions tend to dismiss the finds as part of a Jewish effort to build a Zionist history here."

"Israeli officials point out that when East Jerusalem was in Jordanian hands from 1949 to 1967, dozens of synagogues in the Jewish Quarter were destroyed, Jewish graves were desecrated and Jewish authorities were largely denied access to the Western Wall or other shrines. By contrast, in Jerusalem today, Muslim and Christian authorities administer their holy sites in a complex power arrangement under Israeli control (Ethan Bronner & Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 5/10, A1).

Apparently the UN, which demands that Israel dismantle unauthorized Jewish housing, demands that Israel not dismantle unauthorized Arab housing. Where is the justice in that double standard?

Archeologists have found extensive evidence of ancient Jewish life in Jerusalem and in the rest of Israel, including the Golan. This life preceded the Arab conquest. Please note that the Arab dismissal of the findings as intended to build a Zionist history, does not refute the validity of the findings. The Arabs have two answers to the findings: (1) Demand custody over them, on the basis of ancient "Palestinian" ownership of the land, for which there are no archeological findings, as it is known that the Arabs were centuries away from invading; and (2) Engage in illegal construction on the Temple Mount such that numerous ancient Jewish artifacts are unearthed, taken out of physical context in which found, and dumped or destroyed.

The Times rarely brings in the Jordanian seizure of Jerusalem. It mentions Jordanian destruction of synagogues, but fails to make clear that all were destroyed and thousands of Jewish residents were expelled. Jews were not allowed to pray at the Mount.

More on Arab land sale to Jews:


The Pakistani Army blamed the Taliban "for endangering non-combatants by firing indiscriminately and basing themselves in civilian homes." "The militants are using the civilian population as a human shields, and they have dug trenches in civilian areas." (Andrea Kannapell, NY Times, 5/10, A14.)

That is just what Hamas did in Gaza. Let's see whether the world excuses the Taliban the way they excused Hamas.


A court in Spain accepted a lawsuit against Israel for alleged war crimes in Gaza.

In retaliation, the Israel Terror Victims Association is bringing a lawsuit in the same court, if not in the Hague, against NATO for war crimes in Serbia. The suit would implicate Spanish and other NATO commanders.

NATO forces bombed Serbia from a high altitude, [at the orders of pres. Clinton] to protect themselves from anti-aircraft fire. But the planes could not see targets. They bombed civilians indiscriminately, killing more than 2,000 that way.

The purposes of the Israeli suit are to expose Spanish hypocrisy, based on bigotry, and to get Spain to quash the suits against Israel (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/5).

The Israeli suit is based on real war crimes. The suit in Spain is based on prejudice and persecution.


The head of Israel's National Union Party, MK Yakov Katz, analyzed Pres. Obama's policy on Iran and Israel, as expressed by his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel told the AIPAC convention that the US effort to end Iran's nuclear weapons program depends on Israeli progress in peace negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs.

That claim, not supported by evidence, is a veiled threat against Israel. Katz also noted that the US expresses faith in democracy, but makes demands upon Israel that contradict the expressed view of the Israeli electorate "Progress" to the State Dept. means major concessions to the Arabs. The condition of statehood, alone, would enable the Arabs to fire missiles at those Israeli cities they cannot now reach. The concessions that the State Dept. favors would render Israel vulnerable to conquest by the Arabs. In other words, unless Israel puts the Arabs into position to conquer it, the US would let Iran destroy it.

Concessions to Islamists failed again, when Pakistan made concessions to the Taliban, and the Taliban abused them to move nearer to the capital and its nuclear hoard. Katz suggested that Israel expose Rahm's illogical and unfair demands of Israel /http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/5).

Rahm and Obama don't make sense. If Israel makes concessions, then the US would raid Iran. The Arabs want that raid. If the US should raid Iran, why make it depend on Israel? I think it is a pretext for wrenching concessions out of Israel.

For more on Obama's policy on Iran:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d27-Israel-Seen-Preparing-To-Raid-Iran

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 20, 2009.

It is 42 two years since Jerusalem was reunited under our sovereignty. Four-two years since we took eastern Jerusalem and the Old City in the Six Day War.

Tonight and tomorrow we celebrate Yom Yerushalayim — may she remain united in our hands eternally.

Enjoy this one-minute video that celebrates Yerushalayim with scenic and historical views:

And for the most stunning version of Yerushalayim shel zahav (Jerusalem of Gold) sung by the late, magnificent Ofra Haza z"l:
http://judaismoreformista.blogspot.com/2007/08/ ierushalaim-shel-zahav-ofra-haza.html


Speaking of Jerusalem:

Palestinian sources are lamenting that they were promised by the US that in any peace deal Jerusalem would be their capital.

But President Obama's peace plan — essentially the Saudi plan with some modifications, which he intends to unveil in Cairo when he gives his much-vaunted talk in early June — envisions things just a bit differently. In this plan the Palestinians would get eastern Jerusalem as their capital, but the holy places would be under the jurisdiction of the UN.

I can just imagine him, thinking how sage this is, how fair. That an international agency should supervise these sites, thus preventing Jewish-Arab rivalry for control.

For us this is nothing more than a joke. The United Nations controlling the Kotel (Western Wall) and the Temple Mount? Oi! Give me a break!

That Obama would think this is OK means he is totally devoid of any sensitivity to how the UN has treated us (does he even know the UN Human Rights Council record?) or how we respond to this agency. Either that, or he just doesn't care, as long as he provides a surface semblance of impartiality. 1

But it seems this plan doesn't suit the Palestinians either. And I love this complication.


An even worse hindrance to the "peace plan" is the instability of the Palestinian Authority, with which we would be expected to negotiate, and which would presumably govern an autonomous region or state. Seems a good part of the Fatah party is not happy with the new government that Abbas has put in place. While many Fatah people have become ministers, they have done so as individuals and not as members of the party.

Fayyad, it should be noted, is viewed (not without reason) as a puppet of the West.

Has Obama figured out precisely whom we are supposed to talk to and who actually can speak for the Palestinian Arab body politic?


An issue was raised by a reader today (thanks, Minka) that I've addressed before, but would like to return to here. I refer above to the "Palestinian Arab body politic," but the question is whether there really is one. That is, are the Arabs known as Palestinians truly united in their perceptions of themselves as one people, with a genuine yearning for a state?

There is every indication that the answer is no. There are multiple loyalties — to the hamula, which is the all-important clan; to ideologies, including radical Islam and even socialism; to cultural associations linked with Egypt or Jordan; etc. But they don't get their act together as one people. And thus have they failed to develop the infrastructure necessary for building a state.


Whatever Obama's intentions towards us, our strongest friends in the US are in Congress. A letter initiated both by members of the Republican and Democratic parties has been sent to President Obama, telling him that "peace cannot come while terrorism continues to wrack Israel."

It was signed by over 250 members of Congress, including 76 senators.


Prime Minister Netanyahu was pushed with regard to a freeze on settlements while he was in Washington, but he declined to commit to anything, saying that first he wants to see what commitments the PA is honoring. This is his principle of reciprocity. As National Security Advisor Uzi Arad put it, "If this is about give and take, then what is the Palestinian side ready to give? You can't expect Israel alone to answer the Palestinians' demands time and again."

Washington leaders were told that we will continue to build in Jerusalem and in our major settlement blocs.


Netanyahu arrived back home today and pronounced himself satisfied.

It is being reported that in a briefing on the plane coming home, Ron Dermer, one of Netanyahu's closest aides, told the journalists present that "the focus by the media on the concept of solving the Israel-Palestinian issue through a two-state solution is childish and stupid...the fixation with that idea rather than focusing on the fundamental issues." He was careful to say he wasn't describing the concept itself this way, but he was headed in that direction.

However, according to YNet, another, unnamed, Netanyahu aide was less circumspect and referred to the concept itself as "juvenile."

What we're seeing then is the beginning of a campaign to discredit the Obama approach and deal more realistically with the complexities of the situation.

My response: A very cautious, a very tentative Halleluyah!


As many of you may know, Iran today announced the test of a Sajjil-2 missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers, which has the capacity to reach not only Israel, but US troops in the region and parts of Europe. This announcement has been confirmed.

It is not of immediate concern to Israel, as Iran has older missiles with a range sufficient to reach us, and we have been preparing defense against this via anti-missile systems. But it should be of concern to the Western world more broadly.

An unnamed US official cited by Reuters said, that though the United States wants to engage with Teheran, American patience is "not infinite."

"Iran just keeps going in the wrong direction. We want them to engage with us, to talk about how we can make the region more stable. This is just a step in the wrong direction,"


Do the Americans responsible for current policy know how stupid this sounds?

It's as if this official is speaking to a recalcitrant child who won't get with the program: "You didn't like it when Bush ostracized you, and we're trying to be nice to you. So why are you making it so hard for us and being so contrary? Naughty, naughty. We can't help you when you act this way."

Has it occurred to anyone over there that it is simply not a goal of the Iranian mullahs to make the region more stable? That this is the whole point?


Sigh... Then we have the secretary of state, who spoke about Iran at a Senate hearing today. She said that the prospect of a nuclear Iran was an "extraordinary threat", and that the government was working "to persuade the Iranian regime that they will actually be less secure if they proceed with their nuclear weapons program."

In my humble opinion, Hillary is not sounding too swift either.


"The Good News Corner"

Today it's political good news. First an announcement from the Foreign Ministry:

"Israel will, for the first time, open an embassy in Ashgabat, capital of Turkmenistan. The decision to open the embassy was reached in view of the development of the good bilateral relationship with Turkmenistan and the new momentum in relations with Central Asian countries.

"Turkmenistan is one of the leading countries in Central Asia, and Israel's relations with it are of political, economic and strategic importance.

"We are certain that the permanent presence of an Israeli diplomat at the ambassadorial level in Ashgabat will ensure an additional quantum leap in the development of relations with a pivotal and friendly country such as Turkmenistan."


Interestingly, in today's Jerusalem Post is an article by the ambassador to Israel from Kazakhstan, another Central Asian nation. He praises the cooperation and positive dynamic between his country and ours, and seeks stronger ties.

From the Foreign Ministry announcement: "the new momentum in relations with Central Asian countries." Our future is with these nations and not the nations of western Europe.


Kuwait has just held a general election and the results represent a stunning victory for reform and democratization. For the first time ever, women — four of them — were elected to the parliament, while the Muslim Brotherhood lost three of its four seats.


Then, as this is Yom Yerushalayim, sharing of a bit of news regarding Mayor Barkat's new master plan for Jerusalem, to be carried out over a period of years:

[] A green belt surrounding the city, with picnic areas and hiking trails, a bicycle path and a lake.

[] Revamped eastern Jerusalem infrastructure, with 13,00 housing permits for Arab housing and special attention to historic sites.

[] A massive tourist drive.

[] Tens of thousands of new hi-tech jobs.

[] Affordable housing and arrangements for young couples who are now squeezed out of the city.

Let it be!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Mr La, May 20, 2009.

This was written by Herb Deneberg, a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

Editor's Note:

Someone who read this wrote to say: but what else can group Z (the Palestinian Arabs) do — they own the land and Israel is occupying it and they have Israel's weaponry.

I wrote back that (1) Israel owned the land legally by irrevocable trust; (2) and there had never ever been a Palestinian state or country in Mandated Palestine, or for that matter, a Palestinian people, until Yasser Arafat declared the locals a "people" in 1964; and (3) most of the "Palestinians" immigrated into what became Israel and the Territories after 1900; and (4) in 1922, British cut away 78% of what was supposed to become the Jewish homeland. That area is now called Jordan. I suggested he google the articles by Yoram Shifftan and Howard Grief in Think-Israel.org to read the legal aspects. I haven't heard back.


Answer these questions and then prepare to learn that logic, reason, decency and rationality has departed from those who now claim to be peacemakers:

Should nation A grant statehood to a group (we'll call it group Z) dedicated to the demolition of nation A?

Should nation A grant statehood to group Z that will not accept nation A's right to exist?

Should nation A grant statehood to group Z whose president glorifies suicide bombers and makes heroes of suicide bombers who are in the business of blowing up babies, women and children in nation A?

Should nation A grant statehood to group Z that 16 years ago promised to outlaw terrorism against nation A, to arrest terrorists dedicated to destroying nation A, to end its incitement to hatred and violence against nation A, and despite solemn agreements, simply does not keep these written promises aimed at assuring peace between nation A and group Z?

Should nation A grant statehood to group Z whose president proudly displays a map of nation A that omits the name of nation A from the map and instead labels it as the land of group Z?

Should nation A grant statehood to group Z when 75 percent of its members reject nation A's right to exist?

Should nation A grant statehood to group Z when 64 percent of its members support continued terrorist rocket attacks against civilians in nation A, and by a margin of two to one believe if group Z gets statehood, it would be a terror state?

Should nation A grant statehood to group Z whose media regularly promote killing Americans?

Should nation A grant statehood to group Z when 65 percent of its members support al-Qaida, the terrorist group?

Should nation A grant statehood to group Z whose Parliament speaker has said, "Kill the Americans to the last one."

I posed this as a hypothetical to expose how preposterous and unreasonable the proposal is for the two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's easier to see the proposal when stripped to its bare bones. The two-state solution might make sense some day, but now is not the time. When group Z isn't intent on exterminating nation A and are prepared to live in peace, that would be the time.

The hypothetical removes some of the miscellaneous baggage from the issue, and makes crystal clear the sheer lunacy of the two-state solution at this time. Israel is nation A, and the Palestinians are group Z. This two-state solution is now the accepted wisdom of the Obama administration, Arab states, the international community and the Palestinian Authority (PA). It is a no-starter on its face.

The two-state solution is in fact a no-state solution for Israel. When you consider the facts as catalogued in the questions at the beginning of this column, you have to conclude that a two-state solution now would be nothing but a suicide pact for Israel.

In fact, there are other facts not even included in the questions, which make the suicide nature of the two-state solution even more painfully apparent. Here are those other proposals that go along with the two-state solution, which is in fact an Arab initiative that seems to have been adopted by the Obama administration. You would think that Israel would be a party to a parley between the Obama administration and Arab nations that decides the fate of Israel.

First, the two-state solution calls for Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 war borders. Those borders are clearly indefensible, and would make Israel vulnerable to any attack and would assure that its defense would be impossible.

Second, the two-state solution calls for a "just" solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Those are code words for letting all of the Palestinian refugees who left during the 1948 conflict, which the surrounding Arab nations started by their unprovoked aggression in violation of the original U.N. determination of a two-state solution.

The return of all these refugees would mean that the essential Jewish nature of Israel would be destroyed, and the Jewish minority in Israel would be subjected to the edicts of an unfriendly and even genocidal majority.

If the two-state solution sounds as bad as anything can get, there's more. The U.S. and the Arab nations are now trying to tie any united front against Iran, and its development of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, with a two-state peace with the Palestinians. The idea is that before anything can be done to Iran, we have to make Israel commit national suicide via the two-state solution.

Cutting through the phony rhetoric, giving up Israel to a suicide peace plan is simply an attempt to appease Iran. That appeasement would only be viewed as a sign of weakness by Iran and would make it more intractable. As Investor's Business Daily (May 18, 2009) points out, "As always, appeasement always fans the flames of evil."

In other words, the Obama administration and the Arab nations are giving Israel two alternative paths, both of which lead to Israel committing suicide. It can agree to a two-state solution and assure its own destruction, as its borders will be indefensible and as it will be giving citizenship to a demographic group now dedicated to its destruction. Or it can reject suicide via the two-state solution, and instead elect suicide by Iran — with the apparent approval of the U.S. and the Arab nations — and Iran's development of nuclear weapons of mass destruction ... which it has repeatedly announced it will use on Israel. Iran and its genocidal madness should be the top U.S. and world priority, as it is a threat to world safety. It should not be used as a bargaining chip or an appeasement attempt to sell a totally unreasonable Arab peace plan.

The U.S., the Arab states and the "international community" are trying to shove the suicidal two-state solution down Israel's throat, as if it is the only way to go. The Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says he will not even meet with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu until he agrees to pursue Palestinian independence and freeze construction of West Bank settlements. All these demands are premature when the Palestinians will not even stop their terrorism, their suicide bombings, their incitement to violence and hate carried out by their government-controlled media, mosques and schools. They promised to stop all that terrorism in accordance with promises made 16 years ago. How can Israel be expected to make all kinds of concessions in advance and come to the peace table, when the nation is still under siege by endless terrorism and endless incitement to violence and hate? Remember what prior concessions have achieved for Israel — more suicide bombings, rockets aimed at civilians and terrorism.

The first step is for the Palestinians to stop their war to destroy Israel.

I'll give the world a good alternative to the two-state solution. For starters, end Palestinian terrorism and incitement to hate and violence against Israel. Then peace will be possible in all kinds of variations, including the two-state solution.

It continues to get worse. Now meet Vice President Joe Biden, who has an almost perfect record of being wrong on virtually every foreign policy issue during his decades in the Senate. He even opposed the liberation of Kuwait and was willing to cede the Middle East to then dictator Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Now he's telling Israel that any action against Iran would be "ill-advised."

Iran is threatening to incinerate Israel with nuclear bombs and missiles and Vice President Biden says self-defensive measures would be ill-advised. Apparently the vice president thinks being subjected to nuclear incineration is the way to go. Yes, poor Vice President Biden can't get anything right, and perhaps Hugh Hewitt, the talk show host, is right when he gave him the nickname Slow Joe. He's not slow. He's intellectually stopped dead in the water.

There are other sorry aspects with this peacemaking by President Barack Obama, the Arab nations and the international community. They are willing to impose a peace treaty on Israel. Peace treaties are supposed to be negotiated by the parties to the conflict and not by other nations or international organizations. Also peace treaties have to be negotiated between parties that want peace. How do you negotiate a peace treaty with a group that is dedicated to your destruction?

Israel has already discovered what happens when you turn territory over to genocidal, terrorist enemies. They continue to try to destroy Israel. That's what happened when Gaza was turned over to the Palestinians, and that's the history of peacemaking with the Palestinians. And that's all a two-state solution would deliver — a better platform for continuing the Palestinian war against Israel. The Palestinians have a long, unbroken record of rejecting peace and going for violence and terrorism.

This all seems quite obvious to anyone who considers it. Yet it has escaped the Obama administration, the Arab nations and the international community. But the agreement by the international community doesn't make it right.

There's a battle going on over the imposition of the suicidal two-state solution on Israel. You can join the battle by letting the president know where you stand by calling the White House comment hotline at 202-456-1111 or the White House switchboard at 202-456-1414. You can also reach your congressman by calling members of Congress at 202-226-3121. Be patient when you do, because the White House lines seem to be busy most of the time. You can also try to influence public opinion by calling talk shows and writing letters to the editor.

What's most surprising about this is that too many seem to be indifferent to the coming Iranian development of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, the danger that creates for the world, and its plan for Holocaust II for Israel, and the same seeming indifference to the imposition of suicide via the two-state solution.

The best indictment of the two-state solution comes from the Zionist Organization of America and its president Morton Klein. Mr. Klein has a record of being right on target for many years on issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I credit the ZOA for that and have supported its work. But it will take more than that to stop Iran, whose bombs will be directed at America after they are directed at Israel.

And it will take more than that to prevent Holocaust II via Iran or the two-state solution. Does the world really mean "never again?" You decide, and perhaps do something to get the right answer before its too late.

Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Kenneth R. Timmerman, May 20, 2009.

"Now, understand that part of the reason that it's so important for us to take a diplomatic approach [toward Iran] is that the approach that we've been taking, which is no diplomacy, obviously has not worked. Nobody disagrees with that." Mr. Obama then added a few illustrations to bolster his case:

"Hamas and Hezbollah have gotten stronger. Iran has been pursuing its nuclear capabilities undiminished. And so, not talking, that clearly hasn't worked. That's what's been tried. And so what we're going to do is try something which is actually engaging and reaching out to the Iranians."

Let's assume for an instant that the people briefing Mr. Obama on Iran haven't read the files that the George W. Bush administration turned over to them about the previous eight years of diplomacy and outreach toward Tehran. But you don't need to have access to classified information to figure this one out: A simple Google search will suffice.

U.S. government officials at the ambassador level or above met publicly no fewer than 28 times with their Iranian counterparts during the Bush administration, according to published accounts. So Mr. Obama's briefers either were Internet-challenged, lazy or just out-and-out dishonest.

The U.S.-Iran meetings began in November 2001. The last meeting, held in Geneva on July 19, 2008, was conducted by Undersecretary of State William J. Burns, a career bureaucrat who was held over in the same job by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mr. Burns presumably will be involved in the next round of talks. If anyone could have enlightened the president of his error, it was Mr. Burns.

The notion that the Bush administration "never talked to Iran" is the founding myth of Mr. Obama's foreign policy. Mr. Obama repeated it at every occasion during the campaign and has repeated it since. It is patently false.

Another key myth used by the pro-Iran lobby and the president's supporters is that the Iranian regime offered a "grand bargain" to the United States in May 2003, which Bush administration neoconservatives rejected out of ideological zeal.

This myth has been propagated by a former National Security Council analyst, Flynt Leverett, who claims he was personally involved in the exchange.

But Mr. Leverett's claims about the authenticity of the Iranian offer were debunked once and for all by then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage — whom no one has accused of being a closet neoconservative.

In a July 2007 interview with PBS' "Frontline," Mr. Armitage said he was advised by career diplomats in the State Department's Near East bureau that the Swiss ambassador who had conveyed the supposed Iranian offer "had perhaps added a little bit to it, because it wasn't in consonance with the state of our relations."

The Swiss ambassador's fax didn't jibe with more detailed negotiating position papers that had been given directly to senior U.S. officials by their Iranian counterparts, Mr. Armitage said.

"The Swiss ambassador in Tehran was so intent ... on bettering relations between ... the United States and Iran that we came to have some questions about where the Iranian message ended and the Swiss message may begin," Mr. Armitage said. That is a diplomatic way of saying the purported May 2003 offer by Iran was determined by the State Department Near East bureau to be a forgery.

The Obamaland myth of "no diplomacy" with Iran has been debunked by our European allies as well.

In 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered a "grand bargain" to Iran in coordination with the three major powers of the European Union — the United Kingdom, France and Germany. The Iranians were to get security guarantees, recognition and renewed trade — including civilian nuclear technology — in exchange for a suspension of their uranium enrichment work. After much stalling, the Iranian regime dismissed the U.S.-European offer as "propaganda."

A senior adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy told a forum at the Brookings Institution just weeks before November's election that the United States would be foolish to continue nuclear talks with Iran.

"We've been negotiating with the Iranians since 2003, five years," said Therese Delpech. "We came to the conclusion that they are not interested at all in negotiating, but in buying time for their military [nuclear] program."

Russian President Vladimir Putin put the most attractive offer before the Islamic Republic's leaders during his October 2007 summit meetings in Tehran. He offered the regime all it apparently wanted — and more. And yet, still it refused, according to Iranian and U.S. government sources.

We've repeatedly tried diplomacy with the Islamic Republic of Iran. For reasons that are hard to understand, Mr. Obama does not appear to be aware of this record. By the time he climbs out of the rabbit hole into which he has fallen, Iran very well could become a nuclear weapons state.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is President, Middle East Data Project, Inc. He authored "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran" and is a contributing editor to Newsmax.com His latest non-fiction books is a thriller called Honor Killing, available at www.kentimmerman.com. Contact him by email at timmerman.road@verizon.net

This article appeared in the Washington Times

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Caplan, May 20, 2009.

A few weeks ago I wrote about Nadia Linda bas Inbal, a baby born prematurely, who needed surgery to correct a problem in the lungs. Thank G-d the surgery was a success and the baby is able to breathe by herself, for the first time in her one-half year on this planet! Take a look at the baby

Unfortunately Nadia Linda's family is continuing to experience difficulties. Due to expenses surrounding the surgery, and even though both parents work, they have fallen behind in their monthly expenses. To add to their difficulties, their car was stolen three times within the past 18 months.

They are a very special, young Israeli family which has done teshuva over the past few years, and the father learns every day and has a strong connection with several rabbeim. The two big boys, ages 10 and 7, are now learning in Cheder, but because the family is behind on payments to the schools, the schools have actually threatened to stop allowing them to attend.

I spoke to their rav, who explained that they are alone, without any family or close friends to help them. Therefore providing them with help is not only a mitzvah of tzedaka but also of kiruv, so they feel that they are not alone when Klal Yisrael helps them.

If you wish to help, contributions can be sent in Israel to:

American Friends of Nimla Tal
c/o Kaganoff
3 Kfar Ivri
Neve Yaakov, Jerusalem

in America:
American Friends of Nimla Tal
c/o Fishkind
3215 Shelburne Road
Baltimore MD 21208

Make mention on the memo line, or in an accompanying note, that the contribution is intended for


HaRav Meir Cirota, Av Beis Din of the Eida Hareidit in Jerusalem, is familiar with the situation and confirms that it is a legitimate cause.

May we all share in good news!
Alita Arenias

Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Evelyn Hayes, May 20, 2009.

My trip to Washington to support Prime Minister Netanyahu and the United States of America.

I awoke at 5 in the morning, left my house before 6, went to meet a bus to Washington, DC at 7AM.

I was part of a massive demonstration in Israel in the summer of 1993 before Gaza and Jericho first.

It was a test and everyone knows it didn't work. Gaza imported mercenary PLO from all the Jihad nations, Jericho employed torture against those Arabs who didn't want change. Christians and others in the Palestinian Authority started fleeing, leaving their homes unsold but their limbs and lives intact. It happened before in Iran, Lebanon, Cuba. the free people of these countries suffered "change." I am afraid America is suffering "change",the plague of reverse crusades which is collapsing the banks, the auto industry, retirement plans, the work ethic, stability, mobility, independence, freedom. And the silence is horrendous. William Wordsworth wrote, "The world is with us late and soon; getting and spending, we lay waste our passions," Yes, we were too busy getting and spending. Now, unemployed, it is time to think, to feel the pain, to cry, to stop the "change."

I went to Washington to tell Prime Minister Netanyahu to remember Israel has survived all the imperialistic nations, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, the British and it will survive this pan-Mohammedan Jihad. I reminded the crowd from Brooklyn, Riverdale, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Detroit that Mohammed a wandering terrorist in the deserts outside Medina, that he asked King Marwan of Medina to change Judaism. Asma bas Marwan, the poetess, was glad her father denied changing Judaism. She warned him against meeting Mohammed to talk peace. The King of Medina went to talk peace with Mohammed and he and his unarmed entourage got their heads chopped off., just like Dan Pearl. Asma bas Marwan pleaded for the majority of the people to be brave and not succumb to Mohammedan terrorism. The Butcher of Baghdad one day asked Mohammed what he could do for him. Mohammed told him to get rid of Asma daughter of Marwan the dead king of Medina. He went to her tent and chopped her to pieces when she was nursing her baby. Are the Marwans of today hidden Jews who survived and are they killing Jews today to not suffer non-comformity again?

I went to Washington to remind PM Netanyahu that this roadtrap wasn't for a a two state solution but a THREE STATE DISSOLUTION. Jordan is 78% of the Jewish Mandate for a state in what was the Ottoman Empire, divided by Britain after WWI. Is it blindness or anti-Semitism that fails to recognize that dividing 22% when the British White Paper said it was too small a country to accept the Jews who were blackened to ashes in the incinerators of Hitler, partner of the Mufti Haj al Husseini who masterminded the riots of the 1920s and 1930s? Does the world today believe Israel minimized to 22% can hold 6,000,000 and their descendants as well as all the Arab nations? Is the United Nations formed to prevent ethnic cleansing doing a reality check or is it hoping 6,000,000 Jews will be killed again, nuked, besides being bombed daily? Did I really hear this President of the United States call this tragedy that has killed thousands and where the bombs are rolling in through tunnels nonstop call what the Jews are suffering "mischief?" Were wired bodies in Jenin mischief? Are rocket attacks on Sderot, Ashdod, Ashkelon "mischief"?

Calling war "mischief" is madness. Calling "hate attacks and murder" MISCHIEF is minimizing and accepting the unacceptable.

I went to Washington to speak up for the Jews, Israel and a free-thinking and moral acting America, a proud nation independent of the British, Saudi Arabia, the dictators of the world. I went to Washington to ask the world not to bow to evil, to uphold truth, to keep the world as it was created, GOOD! I went to speak up for the "good ideology' the ideology of one man, Abraham, who walked away from evil, decadence, immorality, destruction and dedicated his life to the Creator. I went to Washington because G-d freed the Jews from slavery in Egypt and because one man gave United Jewry the Torah, the pathway of creation, good, government and life itself.

I went to Washington because I am not blind and I want a better world for my children and grandchildren. I went because my ancestors fled Russia Poland and Austria Hungary before the Holocaust because the pogroms were evil not mischief and murdered Jews, babies, mothers, grandmothers, grandfathers, fathers.

Richard Hellman of Cipac

If the world refuses to see the suicide bombings of the Park Hotel on Pesach and killing Jewish children eating pizza with their families in Sbarro, Israel and that pan Jihad is reaching America; if the world didn't suffer the collapse of the Twin Towers in America, the suicide attacks in London, in Madrid, in Bombay, perhaps they could plead innocence. The silence is deafening and the silent are guilty. The Big Lie of Mohammedan Peace has left a Jewish king dead, no Jews in Saudi Arabia, hidden Jews converted to killing, apartheid in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Gaza, Ramallah, Bethlehem, the City of Love. David's Tomb on Mount Zion is scribbled with Arab graffiti. Joseph's Tomb in Schem, bought by Jacob in the Bible was burned and chopped to pieces.

As a young woman stood with a sign claiming Israel's apartheid, I spoke of the Arab children, doctors, nurses in Jerusalem hospitals, the Arabs in Hebrew University, the Arab bus drivers, the Arabs guarding the Knesset as well as being Knesset members who meet with the enemies that wish to destroy Israel and kill the Jews. As fraudulant Jews stood with a PLO flag calling Judaism and Zion (G-d) different, I felt pain. Such lies. Were they just stupid? Were they anti-Semites? Whose payroll do they bow to when they are against tthe Jewish state and the miracles that re-made the Jewish state?

I am a history major and read Mein Kampf, the most read book in the Palestinian Authority. I see the Big Lie as Black, Red and Green. I see authority as a synonym for dictatorship. Philistines, a synonym for palestinians were invaders and are a dead race. Goliath was killed by Little David. They call Little Israel, surrounded by 22 Arab states, Goliath and the world believes it. Laugh? No, cry! As survivors say Never Again, Zachor, I am here because I don't want again. Murder and hate kill, and, are not "mischief". There is no roadmap accept the Pathways of the Torah which deeded Israel to the Jews since the time of Avraham, — Avraham purchased the city of Hebron, a burial place for Sarah and Isaac and Rivka, Leah and himself, purchased for 1,000,000 shekels not $24, Schem to the Jews and is the burial place of Josef who saved the Jews and the Egyptians, Jerusalem bought by King David and became the just and respected City of Solomon, of shalom, peace and a light unto nations. A divided Jerusalem was a destroyed Jerusalem. It is beautiful again. A further divided Israel would be a fool's hell where plowhsares are turned into bombs as in Jewrid apartheid Gaza. I am here because I know Eretz Hakodesh, the Jewish Holyland undivided means creation, means peace, gardens, medicine, kindness and love for the whole world.

I am here to say don't accept the unacceptable. Accepting the unacceptable for Jews lets the unacceptable plague the whole world, victims of pan-Jihad, be acceptable.

I am here to say no to change that would make more Cubas, Irans, Venezuelas. I am here to say, "Actualize the dreams of the holy couples who served The Creator, who chose to die and not join evil, who are in heaven because they refused to be part of the evil axis. The striving for perfection by each one of us will keep all from being the tools of dictators. The pathways of the Jews has perfected civilization. It has led to The Bill of Equal Rights". I say no to dictatorial roadmaps made by politicians who cannot see the wrong of human mistakes as well as evil intentions. I say yes to creation and life, plowshares not swords and bombs.

Am Yisrael Chai.

Evelyn Hayes is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes." Contact her at rachelschildren@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berchuck, May 19, 2009.

This comes from the Islam Daily website


The face of radical Islam is no longer limited to gun-toting, bomb-strapping, plane-hijacking terrorists. Now it takes on more subtle forms, warns a new documentary.

WASHINGTON — The face of radical Islam is no longer limited to gun-toting, bomb-strapping, plane-hijacking terrorists. Now it takes on more subtle forms.

It infiltrates the highest echelon of American education; recruits the social rejects in U.S. prisons; and teaches American Muslim children to hate infidels, warns a new documentary that features a devout Muslim American, a former terrorist, and some of the nation's top national security experts.

"This is not a film about Islam," clarifies the documentary "The Third Jihad" at the onset of the film. "It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radicals. This film is about them."

Over the course of 72-minutes, the film pulls together TV footage aired on Islamic broadcasting stations, secret documents that shows U.S. Muslim groups' connection to terror organizations, and interviews with former CIA, FBI analysts and radical Islam experts to introduce the concept of "cultural jihad" — a new jihad method that uses the laws and rights of a society to undermine the freedoms it offers and to overthrow its social system.

The film focuses on the FBI's discovery in 2003 of a 15-page document believed to be a "Grand Jihad Manifesto" authored by the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. The document outlines goals and strategies on how to infiltrate and dominate America from within. It also identifies Muslim organizations, previously thought to be moderate by the U.S., which it could work with to achieve its goal of weakening western culture and impose sharia (Islamic) law in North America.

"There is an ideology we are fighting. You can't say that it is all Al Qaeda," said Dr. M. Zuhidi Jasser, who was the film's narrator, at a press conference in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. "There is Hamas, Hezbollah, there is Islamic jihad, groups in Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Taliban, the Iranian theocratic movements, and the only thing they share is not the tactic but the goal and the end, which is the establishment of the Islamic state."

Jasser is founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), an organization founded to promote the combination of the Muslim faith with American values of democracy, freedom and liberty. He is a devout practicing Muslim American who was a former physician to the U.S. Congress and served in the U.S. Navy.

In addition to partnering with "moderate" U.S. Muslim groups, extremists are also carrying out their cultural jihad in America through the U.S. education system, the film asserts.

Saudi Arabia has given huge endowments to the Middle East Studies departments at the nation's top universities such as Harvard and Georgetown University, which alone have received $20 million each. The students at these schools will be America's future leaders and diplomats, the film explains, and will make future decisions based on their "slanted and radical" Saudi interpretation of Islam.

The form of Islam practiced by Saudi Arabia is Wahhabism, considered the most fundamentalist and extreme out of all the versions. The Saudi legal system based on Wahhabism calls for the hands of thieves to be cut off and for adulterers to be killed.

But not only is Saudi Arabia teaching its Islamic worldview at higher education institutions, it is also disseminating its extreme-version of Islam in mosques across the U.S. to impressionable youths.

A study by Washington-based Freedom House Center for Religious Freedom in 2005 analyzed Saudi-supplied textbooks given to children at U.S. mosques. The study found that the books contained texts and teachings about non-Muslims that could be considered hate speech. The report maintains that such teaching has the potential to radicalize young Americans Muslims.

Besides universities and mosques, U.S. prisons are also proving to be fertile ground to spread radical Islam. Islamic activists, imams, and prison chaplains are reportedly finding success in recruiting inmates by "feeding off the discontent and resentment" these men and women feel toward society.

Jasser wants Muslim Americans to speak out and against radical Islam.

"I think it's important for American Muslims to lead this effort because if we don't fix our problems from within the faith, this movement to create an Islamic state is going to ultimately affect our way of life," Jasser said at the press conference.

"I think the only way to defeat this movement is for Muslims from within to say this is not Islam. This is theocracy."

But sadly, instead of joining him many Muslims have labeled him an enemy or remained quiet.

"The saddest thing to me is this (the documentary) isn't the project that was done by Muslims period. It should have been done just by Muslims," Jasser said. "They (Muslim Americans) focus on victimology, and I think Americans are tired of hearing about victimology and want to hear solutions."

Dr. Emir Caner, a former devout Muslim and now president of the Baptist college Truett-McConnell in Georgia, is doing his part to help promote the film among Christians. He has traveled across the country to screen the documentary to local pastors and talk about how Christians should respond to radical Islam.

Caner told The Christian Post after the screening that he hopes thousands of churches will screen the film to their own audience and Christians will be the "salt and light" and "prophetic voice" to alert the nation on the growing threat.

He acknowledges that Christians might be labeled Islamaphobes, but says, "We can't coward to that and worry about those nomenclature given to us. We have to stand for what is right."

He also joked being called an Islamaphobe is "sort of on a weekly basis for me being a former Muslim."

"The Third Jihad" is released by The Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization that was founded in 2006 to educate Americans about issues of national security. In 2006, the organizations released the documentary "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West."

The name of the film is based on the history of Islamic jihad. The first jihad took place between 622-750 AD (from Arabia to Iraq, Iran, Central Asia, India, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, Portugal and Italy). The second jihad occurred between 1071 to 1683 AD when the Turks invaded the Balkans and all the way to Vienna. And now, the film suggests, the third jihad is the current conflict with radical Islam by America and Western Europe.

Read more about The Third Jihad at www.thethirdjihad.com and at www.radicalislam.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 19, 2009.


Summary of the problem

Radical Muslims seek to institute Islamic Law everywhere, on believers and non-believers alike, with an interpretation of it so strict as to be oppressive, backward, undemocratic, and even barbaric. (4 pages, but with discrete sub-topics.)

Radical Muslim goal for Islamic law

Radical Islamists promote a rigid form of Islamic law, or Sharia and it rule over autonomous, isolated areas whose. The goal is to undermine Western society from within. Jihad is being waged until the entire world adheres to Sharia. Such a vision would end the state's role as guarantor of individual rights and freedoms.

Sharia threatens the Western way of life in its relegation of non-Muslims to second class citizens, sanctioned inequality between men and women, cruel and unusual punishments for crimes, and its restrictive business environment that strangles Western economic freedom and gives financial control to Islamists and Sharia supporters.

What is Islamic law?

Islamic law "is derived from the Koran, the sayings and conduct of Muhammad, and the consensus and reasoning by analogy of Islamic scholars over the centuries. The body of law is divided into decrees relating to personal acts of worship, commercial dealings, marriage and divorce, and penal laws. Islamic law has five strains.

Usually safeguards require evidence, minimizing the frequency of punishment. (But Hamas, PLO, and Taliban do not require proof.)

Crime & punishment, under Islamic law

1. Flogging for sexual intercourse by unmarried offenders, for drinking wine, and therefore alcohol in general, and for gambling.

[Unofficially, Palestinian Arab families or Hamas executes without holding a trial. They may execute on the basis of mere rumor. Raped women are considered shameful and often either are murdered or work off the family shame by committing suicide bombing. PLO officials invested in a casino, despite Islamic law]

2. Stoning to death for adulterers. [Unmarried Palestinian Arab couples that hold hands may be subject to "honor-killing"]

3. Limb amputation for theft, but execution if highway robber results in a homicide;

4. Execution for homosexuals

5. As the fatwa's calling for the assassination of Salman Rushdie and the recent threats against the publishers of the Danish cartoons indicate, death sentences are also prescribed for critics of Muhammad and Islam.

6. Most Muslim states no longer punish apostasy with death. [Arabs not particularly known as Radical have accused of apostasy fellow Muslims who interpret some aspect of Islam differently from themselves.]

Effect on non-Muslims

In an Islamic state under Sharia, non-Muslims are second class citizens.

Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians may not bear arms. They pay a special tax that entitles them to government protection from Muslim mobs, though the mobs sometimes break through. People of other non-Muslim faith may not receive even that protection. [But the Muslims have been forcing the Christians out of the Mideast. Radical Muslims have been preaching the extermination of the Jews].

Muslims have referred to Jews and Christians as "apes" and "pigs." They used to force them to wear clothing that identified them as infidels [the way the Nazis made Jews wear stars of David].

Non-Muslim men who marry Muslim women are regarded as adulterers, fit to be stoned to death. Blasphemy against Muslims is severely punished. Defamation of Muslim holy texts, the insulting of Muhammad, and disrespect towards Islam is according to Sharia, punishable by death. [These days, almost any negative or obscure statement thought critical of Islam or of what Muslims do politically, however based on fact, is considered insulting. Hence the Muslim riots over Danish cartoons.]

Non-Muslims are prohibited from testifying against Muslims in court.

Many Islamists would prohibit music, TV, and movies and enforce traditional prayer attendance and dress.

Effect on women

Generally, a woman needs the spouse's consent to divorce, but the man does not. Husbands may enforce their authority by beating their wives. A woman's testimony is considered half the value of a man's, and only certain types of testimony by women are acceptable in Islamic courts.

Sharia also prescribes a dress code for women requiring them to cover (hijab) all of their bodies except the hands and face. While most Muslim women wear headscarves; in Afghanistan the Taliban forced women to wear the burqa in public where only their eyes could be seen. To enforce hijab, some Islamist groups — Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or supporters of Sharia in Iran — have thrown acid into the faces of non-compliant women.

Businesses restricted by Sharia

Islamists are trying to get authority to practice Sharia-compliant financing (SCF) and to encourage Western business to practice it with Muslim clients. This would regulate the way American and Western financiers operate and with whom they do business. SCF includes prohibitions against investing in companies engaged in the sale of alcohol, pornography, gambling and pork. Other prohibited industries include interest-bearing loans and investments, media and entertainment companies, and defense companies not involved in the "defense of Islam" or that contribute to the defense of the state of Israel. To participate in the SCF market, investment firms and banks must form "Sharia Advisory Boards," made up of sheikhs and muftis formally trained in Sharia.

Companies engaged in SCF also must donate 2.5% to Islamic charities and to "purify" investments that have been "tainted" by forbidden revenue. These contributions are then dispersed to an acceptable charity chosen by the Sharia authorities and are not disclosed to the donating company. Of the eight categories of Sharia approved charities, one includes the funding of those involved in violent jihad ("holy war"), and many of these proceeds have been funneled to terrorist groups. Adherence to such financial conditions allows Islamists to control and collectivize Western free markets, strangling economic freedom under religious pretense.


The desire to impose Sharia conflicts with Western conceptions of human rights and the secular, liberal, democratic state. Sharia makes non-Muslims second class citizens, women are unequal in public life, cruel punishments are leveled for crimes, and restrictions on business ensures Islamist control over financial markets and dispensation of funds. Sharia is currently practiced by Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan, and before their overthrow in 2002 was enforced by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Some Islamists in Europe and elsewhere promote the idea that the Muslim communities should be subject to Sharia under their own courts separate from the public law governing the rest of society. This kind of creeping Sharia is a forerunner of attempts to influence Western society towards Islam


Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu proposes Dr. Michael Oren, senior researcher as the Shalem Institute in Jerusalem to be Ambassador to the U.S..

He has no academic, diplomatic, or government experience. He was a Mossad agent. He seems to be in a string of Israeli politicians sponsored by Henry Kissinger or his Council on Foreign Relations or in any case the US, as future rulers of Israel (Barrychamish@netvision.net.il).

Dr. Oren advocates unilateral and almost full Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. He thinks that would reduce tensions with the Arabs. He would wait for the Palestinian Authority to develop a leadership that can make peace. The next generation there is likelier to make peace; it cannot be imposed from above.

There was unilateral and full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Hamas turned the area into a rocket launching pad. Wasn't that withdrawal a blunder? Dr. Oren said no. He thinks the mistake was in failing to crack down on Hamas immediately it started firing. This hesitancy appeared to the Arabs as weakness [which emboldens their aggression]. (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/24.)

There are no signs of the younger generation of Arabs being less radical, for they are more indoctrinated.

Tensions did not decline between the Gaza Arabs and Israel, when the State of Israel forced Jewish residents out. The settlers had not caused tension. Neither did the Israeli Army, so much as prevent terrorism and therefore tension.

What does cause tension? Advocacy of intolerance and jihad on Arab TV and in their schools. The notion that territorial withdrawal would reduce tension assumes that the Arab-Israel conflict is over territory. It isn't. It is over religion. The Arabs don't tolerate other religions. They won't be satisfied until Islam triumphs over Israel. That means mass-murder, dispossession, repression.

Even that would not satisfy them. They would expand jihad to other areas.


The Yesha Civil Rights Organization scorns diplomatic relations with a government that bans the sale of land to Jews. The Organization is referring to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). The P.A. exacts a death penalty for it. [Jordan has a similar law, but repealed the capital punishment for violation. Would the Organization reject diplomatic relations with Jordan?]

Israel takes the word of Arabs that they did not sell houses to Jews in Hebron. Israel claims to be enforcing the rule of law. What rule of law? The Arabs fear for their lives, when discovered to have sold houses, so they pretend not to have sold (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 4/23.


Sen. Clinton linked Arab support for Israel over threats from Iran to resumption of Israeli negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/24).

Iran is a regional menace. It threatens Arabs states, too, not only Israel. To resist Iran, the Arab states need Israel as much as Israel needs them. The Arab states should not demand more of Israel for their support.

In insisting that Israel negotiate with the P.A., the Arab states really want Israel to make concessions that would enable the Arabs to overwhelm Israel. Israel would go down. Then what good to Israel would be Arab help against Iran?


Israel links negotiations with Abbas to curbing Iran. The spokesman explained that Israel can't made a deal with the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) that Iran would sabotage (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 4/24).

How could Iran sabotage an agreement between the P.A. and Israel? The obvious way would be by helping Hamas take over the P.A.. Less obvious is that Iran now influences Fatah, too. An implied assumption is that an agreement made with the P.A. would weaken Israeli security — giving up strategic depth against invasion, early warning stations, strategic borders with tank traps, the ability to stop terrorism easily, and a major part of national water supply.

The governments of Israel and of the U.S. have a misconception. A pact won't end the conflict, because the Arabs seek religious domination, which means conquest. Israel would be wise to make no concessions to enemies that want to conquer it. Instead, it should strive for victory. That means gradually reclaiming for itself the Territories for the depth, early warning, strategic borders, anti-terrorism, water, and, of course, the heart of the Jewish homeland, which is in Judea-Samaria. Victory strengthens peace.

For more on Israel's negotiation position:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d27-IsraelArab-negotiations--set-preconditions


Sen. Clinton vowed that the State Dept. would keep U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) out of Hamas hands.

She elaborated that if the P.A. forms a coalition regime with Hamas, it must promise to "recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previous agreements." Then she admitted the U.S. would provide taxpayer funds, anyway (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/24).

Sounds as if she were contradicting herself. Besides, the State Dept. already gets U.S. funds into Hamas hands. It gives funds to Abbas, head of the P.A.; he turns a portion of the funds over to the Gaza regime, run by Hamas.


Under the new Israeli regime of PM Netanyahu, the Defense Ministry is not waiting for all the legal appeals, to finish the expensive security fence in Jerusalem. Despite petitions from Jews who have owned certain acreage for decades, the fence is routed to isolate them on the Arab side.

The prior regime of PM Olmert barred them from residing on their land or farming it. PM Netanyahu said he favors the unity of Jerusalem, but he is letting Olmert's Defense Minister, whom he kept on, fence those Jews out. (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 4/24).

Insecurity for his fellow Jews! What a difference between the reputation, statements, and actions by politicians such as Netanyahu and Clinton!


Israel's PM Netanyahu answered Czech Prime Minister Topolanek's question about Israeli construction in Judea-Samaria [a.k.a. "West Bank]. Netanyahu replied that if Israelis can't build houses in Judea-Samaria, neither should Arabs. After all, the Israeli leader said, the Territories are disputed (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/25).

He means that since the Arabs do not have title to them, foreigners should not unilaterally accept Arab conditions for their use.


Hamas is restructuring its command. It will switch from a politburo to a committee equally divided among members from Gaza, from Judea-Samaria, and from abroad. No one faction would dominate the organization. Hamas has been divided by differences between foreign and domestic members.

The current head of Hamas, Mash'al, said he expects Hamas members in Israeli prisons to vote for representatives in the new structure (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/24).

Israel would be prudent not to cooperate with Hamas' election. Why let terrorist prisoners exchange messages with the outside, and foster terrorism?

(For more on terrorist prisoners:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d8-Do-prison-conditions-affect-prisoner-exchanges)


Israeli forces investigated 13 incidents of damage to buildings of the UN or other international organizations. Most incidents were reported by the UN.

Hamas knew that the IDF coordinated its assault with international organizations so as to minimize damage to their facilities. Hamas intentionally stored weapons, occupied offices, or fired from alongside international facilities. [Intentionally, so as either to spare Hamas return-fire or in the case of return-fire, to blame Israel for damaging international facilities. Those are war crimes.] Hamas therefore was responsible for the damage, though it accused Israel of intending damage.

Hamas falsely claimed that its gunmen killed by return-fire were civilians.

In one case, Hamas mortar fire proved effective. The IDF had to fire back. That return-fire was effective, too. Contrary to the subsequent publicity, all the IDF shells landed outside a school, but some civilians did get hurt

Israeli shells fired at military targets in the combat zone did fragment and strike UNRWA headquarters, but only because Hamas fought near UNRWA.

The IDF did fire upon a school, but only at night, when there were no classes and intelligence reports indicated it a war council was being held.

Israel was accused of firing upon an ambulance. The vehicle was in an area that the IDF had informed the international organizations was off-limits to them. Nor was it an ambulance nor innocent civilians. It carried an anti-tank squad. [That duplicity is the war c rime called "treachery."] After unloading the squad, the vehicle moved towards the Israeli troops, who suspected it might be a car bomb. They blew it up. Then the rumor spread that Israel fired upon an ambulance.

An Israeli soldier who fired at a UN vehicle, contrary to IDF rules, was disciplined.

The IDF coordinated with the UN the movement of 500 trucks and ways to avoid damaging 1,800 sensitive facilities. That there were so few incidents is telling!. One UN truck was unmarked and not coordinated. The IDF fired upon it. Obviously that firing was not intended to damage the UN. Another UN vehicle was being used for terrorist purposes (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/22).

Human Rights Watch misrepresented these terrorist rumors as legitimate stories.


"The investigation showed that Hamas based its main line of defense on civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip (i.e. buildings, infrastructure, agricultural lands etc.), and specifically on booby trapped structures (mostly residential), the digging of explosive tunnels and tunnels intended for the moving of people and weaponry. This created an above ground and underground deployment in the Gaza Strip's urban areas by Hamas. During the operation, IDF forces were forced not only to fight the gunmen themselves, but to also deal with the physical terrorist infrastructure prepared by the Hamas and other terrorist organizations in advance. As part of this challenge, the forces demolished structures that threatened the forces and had to be removed — houses which were used by the enemy; other structures used by the enemy for terrorist activity; structures that prevented the forces from moving from one area to another (given that many of the roads were booby trapped); structures that were used to protect Israeli soldiers [I think they mean "protect Hamas soldiers" agricultural elements used as cover for enemy tunnels and infrastructure; and infrastructure next to the security fence used by Hamas for operations against IDF forces or for digging tunnels into Israeli territory."

The IDF blew up booby-trapped buildings before Hamas could blow them up with Israeli soldiers in harm's way. High-ranking officers decided which buildings to blow up. All civilians were evacuated from them. Most of the damage was caused by secondary explosions of the weaponry Hamas stored in the buildings.

In one instance, a soldier was about to damage a building unnecessarily, but the commander halted him and had him disciplined (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/22).

For other reports on battle damage in Gaza, see:


IDF doctrine stresses "purity in arms," i.e., warring responsibly according to international law and stricter standards of ethics. It took seriously accusations of seven incidents of harm to civilians. Harm occurred; intent was absent.

A senior Hamas man used his house as a weapons depot. The IDF wanted to destroy that house. First, the IDF telephoned the occupants, warning them to leave before the attack, gave them time to leave, and saw that people did. Then the IDF fired warning shots with light weapons. Concluding that everyone had left the building, the IDF destroyed the building. However, the Hamas leader had kept his family in the building with him. His stored explosives blew up, too.

Another house harbored Hamas spotters. The IDF tried to let the civilians out of it, before picking off the Hamas gunmen. Four women were killed with them.

The IDF noticed a truck ferrying material between a known Hamas rocket factory and a known Hamas rocket launching site. It carried what appeared to be rockets. The IDF fired upon it, killing four Hamas operatives and four civilians. The truck actually carried oxygen tanks, which resemble rocket tubes; oxygen is used in making rockets.

In another case, the IDF meant to fire upon one building, but struck another.

It was claimed that the IDF fired upon the Maqadme mosque, injuring civilians. Investigation showed that the mosque was not attacked and that the people named as killed in that attack were Hamas gunmen killed in combat. The supposedly struck Rabat mosque remains standing, unharmed.

New claims are coming in and being investigated
http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/22).

The IDF held its forces to a high standard. Its accusers had a criminal standard. Its accusers had a low standard.


A Palestinian Authority (P.A.) military court sentenced an Arab to death for selling land to Jews near Hebron. The charge was treason.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, head of IMRA, finds this charge and sentence further proof that the P.A. is not moderate, as it is depicted in the major Western media (4/24). It is up to Pres. Abbas whether to confirm the sentence.

The former apartheid regime of S. Africa expelled blacks from white areas. The P.A. and its supporters call Israel an apartheid state. However, Israel does not deport its Arab citizens, whereas the P.A. allows no Jews and it punishes severely Arabs, who sell land to Jews even outside the P.A.. Which would you call apartheid, Israel or the P.A..?

An Israeli official pointed out the inconsistency in those who want statehood for the P.A. to be exclusively for Arabs, but do not want Israel exclusively for Jews.


Syria and Turkey agreed to military and technical cooperation. No details specified. Turkey-Iran trade has grown to $12 billion a year. Five European states together do $15 billion worth of trade with Iran ( 4/28).

Iran has overcome much of the sanctions the US imposed and encouraged so as to pressure Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons. It also seems as if Turkey were joining the evil axis. Why else share technical information with a rogue state such as Syria?


Palestinian Authority (P.A.) Pres. Abbas has a formula for a coalition regime with Hamas. He said that the regime would promise to abide by prior agreements with Israel, so as to end the boycott of Gaza. He also said about Hamas that "forces" need not abide by prior agreements (4/27).

Let's decode that formula. The new P.A. regime, of which Hamas would be a part, would pledge to keep the peace, as per prior agreements. The militia belonging to Hamas, however, could continue the armed struggle.

Such a contradiction, based on sophistry in wording, is the way jihadists operate. Since the West just wants to appease the Arabs, Abbas may get away with it.


Haaretz had another of those reports periodically praising the P.A. as fighting terrorism. This time it included an IDF compliment, that the P.A. has attained more internal coordination among its forces. Abbas' forces are taking over from Israel the job of rooting out Hamas' false-charity infrastructure and Hizbullah agents. The P.A. has been arresting dozens of Hamas agents. P.A. forces devote much of their effort against foreign agents. One goal is to stop leaks of intelligence to Hamas.

After such reports, the IDF usually admits later "that there were very serious problems [with the P.A. program], with the clear implication that the praise had been more to serve an agenda than to report the truth."

Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA points out that the same P.A. contemplates integrating its forces with Hamas forces
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/5).

The P.A. usually does not crack down on terrorist forces, though it may sever some of its financial pipelines. The P.A. tends to release Hamas prisoners after a while. Israel has to raid the P.A. to destroy terrorist forces.

Haaretz may get straight what people say, but it often does not get the overall story straight.
P.A.-Hamas rivalry deadly effects:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d6-Palestinian-Authority-lets-sick-Arabs-die


The Obama administration takes an increasingly frosty tone towards Israel. He reportedly tells foreign diplomats that he will force Israel to come to terms with the Arabs [on Arab terms]. Therefore, Israeli Pres. Peres came to the U.S. to set a friendly tone for PM Netanayahu's visit.

Instead, Obama barred the media. Peres was quietly whisked in and out, as if the US government were ashamed of being friendly with Israel (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/11).

An earlier Obama snub was:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d7-Obama-snubs-Israel

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, May 19, 2009.

Editor's Note America has been training Palestinian military forces in Jordan at a cost of some 300 million dollars as "security forces." Of course, they woud never use their weapons against Israelis — that would make them terrorists.

This below comes from the Joe Settler website


Lt. General Keith Dayton, US Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Territories plans to add three more battalions to the Palestinian Authority's paramilitary security force.

I just want to ask some simple questions.

Why do they need AK-47 automatic machine guns? If they are police, give them pistols.

Why do they need to wear army fatigues? If they are police, give them blue police uniforms.

How much longer until they attack IDF soldiers again?

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Chuck Brooks, May 19, 2009.
This was written by Joan Swirsky and it appeared yesterday in Renew America
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/swirsky/090518. Swirsky is a a New York-based journalist and author who can be reached at joansharon@aol.com. Visit her website at www.joanswirsky.com.

In times past, coalminers working in the depths of the earth took along caged canaries. As long as the canaries warbled, the miners knew they were safe from the methane and carbon monoxide that would kill them in minutes. But when the tiny songbirds stopped singing, the miners knew to run for their lives.

Jews have always been the canaries in the coal mines of civilization, serving as a warning of impending doom to those who believed, as Churchill said, that the crocodile — of tyranny — would eat them last. The Jews of Hitler's Germany who listened carefully to the savage dictator's early words, and watched as his promises of hope and change morphed into incremental losses of freedom and ultimately genocide, fled their country and survived, while the six-million who said "it can't happen here" — as well as six-million non-Jews who believed they were immune — perished in the largest mass-murder in history.

After Hitler's brutal annihilation of half the Jews on earth, the straggling survivors established the State of Israel, which in less than 50 years became a formidable power, and also a world obsession — admired and respected, but also envied and loathed.

Since Israel's founding in 1948, America has been the Jewish state's most steadfast supporter, even when this or that president was not particularly enamored of "the Jews" — with the stark exception of Jimmy Carter who, to this day, oozes Jew-hatred from his aging pores. Why? Because, unlike every state in the Middle East and every anti-freedom regime on earth, Israel embodies all of our country's values — the ideal of democracy, the rule of law, a determination to fight the enemies of Western civilization, and a fidelity to the Judeo-Christian ethics that have made both America and Israel shining lights among freedom-loving nations.

Today, with the advent of the Obama administration, Israeli canaries are chirping loudly, warning the entire world, particularly America but also Europe, that if Israel is sacrificed to Obama's far-left anti-Israel and anti-American agenda, then freedom-loving, God-fearing countries around the world will be suffocated and sacrificed to a new American caliphate — to the harsh and inflexible rule of Islamic theology, philosophy, and law.


To prepare for his meeting on May 18 with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama prepared a menu of poison pills — the kind given to people with the same Hobson's Choice that Mafia attorney Tom Hagen gave to the imprisoned and about-to-testify-before-Congress Frankie Pentangeli in "Godfather Two" — either commit suicide or we're going to kill you. Examples abound.

  • Just the other day, Obama announced he will be addressing the Arab and Muslim world from a mosque in the city of Al-Azhar in Egypt — a location writer Ruth S. King has described as "the locus of Koranic-inspired Jihad." Indeed, this Sunni bastion supports suicide-bombings. And only last week, according to JihadWatch.org, Sheikh Ali Osman of the Egyptian government said, "Pigs are Jews cursed by Allah, and thus can be lawfully slaughtered."

  • This week, by Executive Order, Obama directed the expenditure of $20.3 million — of U.S. taxpayers' dollars — in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza, which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas and its Islamic Resistance Movement to resettle in the United States. Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009 was recorded in the Federal Register on February 4.

  • Also this week, Obama submitted a budget to Congress that while increasing military aid to Israel for the Arrow 3, cut in half aid for the Arrow 2 and significantly reduced aid for short-range missile interceptors, just as Iran is strengthening its conventional ballistic missile force.

  • This month, Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu for the P.M.'s planned visit to address the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Conference in D.C.

  • At the same AIPAC meeting, Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly told donors that America's ability to face Iran depended on Israel's ability to make progress with the Palestinians, once again echoing the tired Leftist canard that all conflicts in the Middle East are the result not of the jihadist mentality, but rather the failure of Israel to accept their virulently anti-Semitic propaganda (in the media and in schools), non-stop homicide bombings, and relentless rocket attacks..

  • In numerous Obama-sanctioned public statements, his henchmen have, in the common vernacular, put the screws to Israel, among them Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who threatened: "For Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-á-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sideline with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts... they go hand in hand," and National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones who recently told a European foreign minister that the U.S. is planning to build an anti-Israel coalition with the Arabs and Europe to compel Israel to surrender Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

  • Obama let it be known that his plan for a "two-state solution" was perfectly in-sync with the wipe-Israel-off-the-map crowd, including terrorist-sponsoring Syria and Saudi Arabia, among others. And what sweet nothings do you suppose Obama whispered into the ears of Iran's Ahmadinejad that just prompted the sudden release from jail of the Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi?

  • And let's not forget that Obama's first phone call to a head of state was to Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Fatah party in the Palestinian territory, and who also wrote his doctoral thesis denying the Holocaust. Did I mention Abbas' loyal second-in-command fealty to "the father of terrorism," Yasir Arafat?

  • Or that Obama gave his first TV interview to Al Arabia television.

  • Or that Obama summarily dismissed all charges against the Muslim murderers of 17 American sailors on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2001.

  • Or that Obama, according to David Patten at Newsmax.com, "is preparing to reinstate a fraud-riddled immigration program that has brought over 36,000 Somalis into the United States under questionable circumstances."

  • Or that Obama bowed so repugnantly on his recent European trip to the Saudi Arabian potentate.

This "genocidal hostility toward Israel," as writer Mona Charen describes it, is Obama & Co.'s way of insuring that they succeed where former administrations have failed in bringing about the ever-elusive "two-state" solution — a "solution" Leftists like Obama have cravenly tried to delude much of the world into believing will magically resolve the world's other conflicts.

Anne Bayefsky of www.eyeontheun.org explains Obama's nefarious plans perfectly: "President Obama unveiled a new strategy for throwing Israel to the wolves. It takes the form of enthusiasm for the United Nations and international interlopers of all kinds. Instead of ensuring strong American control over the course of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations or the Arab-Israeli peace process, the Obama administration is busy inserting an international mob between the U.S. and Israel. The thinking goes: If Israel doesn't fall into an American line, Obama will step out of the way, claim his hands are tied, and let the U.N. and other international gangsters have at their prey."

The Obama formula, based not on an American or Israeli plan but rather on the "Saudi Peace Initiative," involves:

  • Forcing Israel to withdraw to 1967 cease-fire lines, or as the late Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban called them, "the borders of Auschwitz."

  • Demanding that Israel withdraw from the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and eastern Jerusalem, leaving behind important Biblical sites, the Temple Mount, and the country's border security.

  • Surrendering of over one-third of Israel's water supply.

  • Dividing Jerusalem in half, to make way for a Palestinian capital.

  • Coercing Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which writer Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation said is tantamount to "demanding that a man in a rough neighborhood give up his shotgun when the criminal next door is getting a Kalashnikov."

  • Inundating Israel with millions of Palestinian refugees and their relatives from 1948, thus stripping the country of its Jewish ethos.

  • De facto surrounding Israel with jihadists who live and die to kill the "infidel" Jews. As Judith Apter Klinhoffer writes, "Let us not forget, Iranian satellite Hezbollah is perched on Israel's Northern border and Iranian satellite Hamas on the Southern one. An Iranian satellite on the Western one would complete the encirclement."

As King Abdullah of Jordan told journalists after his recent meeting with President Obama — clearly referring to the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) — "That is not a two-state solution; it is a 57-state solution." Mmmm...Obama himself said during his campaign that he had visited "all 57" of the United States! And let's not forget that during an interview with George Stephanopoulos, he said ..."in my Muslim faith..." — which he didn't correct but his host rushed to correct.


In spite of more than a half-century of Arab belligerence, war-mongering, suicide bombings, and virulent anti-Israel propaganda blaring from mosques and the media, brainwashing school texts, maps that eliminate the Jewish state, and obdurate resistance to all peace initiatives, Caroline Glick says that "as far as the Obama administration is concerned, Israel is the only obstacle to peace....the Obama White House's bald attempt to force Israel to take full blame for the Arab world's hostility toward it is not the only way that it is casting Israel as the scapegoat for the region's ills. In their bid to open direct diplomatic ties with Iran, Obama and his advisors are also blaming Israel for Iran's nuclear program."

"Even Ethan Bronner of the The New York Times pointed out," Glick continues, "that Obama's Middle East policy is not based on facts. If it were, the so-called 'two state solution,' which has failed repeatedly since 1993, would not be its centerpiece. Obama's Middle East policy is based on ideology, not reality. Consequently, it is immune to rational argument. By blaming Israel for the absence of peace in the Middle East while ignoring the Palestinians' refusal to accept Israel's right to exist; by seeking to build an international coalition with Europe and the Arabs against Israel while glossing over the fact that at least the Arabs share Israel's concerns about Iran; by exposing Israel's nuclear arsenal and pressuring Israel to disarm while in the meantime courting the ayatollahs like an overeager bridegroom, the Obama administration is telling Israel that regardless of what it does, and what objective reality is, as far as the White House is concerned, Israel is to blame."

Sound familiar? As I documented in recent articles — "Obama's Revenge" and "The President Who Hates His Country" — Obama and his Leftist cronies revile Western civilization and all those evil white men who established the U.S. Constitution and the most productive, most generous and freest country in world history, as he so amply demonstrated in his recent apologize-for-America trip to Europe.

In an article "The United Hates of America," David Solway comments on "...the long and destabilizing campaign of the American Left against the political interests of its own country and its rush to embrace the dictatorial agendas of America's most resolute enemies...'the unholy alliance' between the radical Left and the Islamic Right." Solway also comments on a new book by Jamie Glazov, "United in Hate":

"Glazov's "analysis," Solway continues, "seems the only conceivable means of making sense of the leftist orgy of national treason, betrayal of genuine liberal principles, and passionate support of tyrants and demagogues. It also clarifies the bizarre and singular marriage between the Left and Islamism. Glazov writes that the 'common denominator' between two such improbable bedfellows — the one ostensibly promoting gender equality, freedom of speech, and a pluralistic society, and the other predicated on gender apartheid, theocratic coercion, and conformity to Sharia law — is a belief in redemptive violence. This is why so many on the secular Left...exulted in the carnage of 9/11, as did their fundamentalist counterparts in the Islamic world, like the Palestinians who danced in the street and handed out candies to celebrate the great event. For the members of the anti-American Left, their papers and speeches were the candies they distributed to mark this sublime and long-awaited triumph.

"Yet another important common denominator, Glazov explains, between the Western Left and Islamism is their shared hatred for the state of Israel, the only true, democratic nation in the Middle East and the West's forward position in the war against an undeviating adversary. The Left abominates Israel as a mini-America, that is, as a colonial occupier of third world innocents, and as a symbol of all the things it loathes: 'modernity, freedom, corporate capitalism and globalization — all things reviled by Muslim fundamentalists. It has thus allied itself with militant Islam on the principle that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.'"

So we know where Obama and his henchmen-and-women stand. And we know that they've read every Jew-hating, Israel-hating word of The Fatah (Palestinian) Constitution and agree with every defamatory, racist, genocidal tenet of this kill-the-Jews-and-destroy-Israel manifesto, which they apparently find less objectionable than the U.S. Constitution.


Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, has long and deep ties with the enemies of America and Israel. This is what Dick Morris, former advisor to President Clinton, and his wife, Eileen McGann, wrote last year:

[Hillary's] relationship with terrorists began in the mid-1980s when she served on the Board of the New World Foundation, which gave funds to the Palestine Liberation Organization [when] the PLO was officially recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization. In 1996, the First Lady initiated an outreach program to bring Muslim leaders to the White House. But, as terrorism expert Steve Emerson noted in the Wall Street Journal, 'Curiously, nearly all of the leaders...came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations....Among these radical groups was the American Muslim Alliance (AMA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, both groups that support Hamas...The Palestinian terrorists know that Hillary hears their point of view...Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in Gaza, [said], 'We just hope that she will go until the end and change American policy."

Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has advocated ending all U.S. military aid to Israel. Ed Lasky at TheAmericanThinker.com writes that "Rice was John Kerry's chief foreign policy adviser when he ran for President. One of the major steps Kerry suggested for dealing with the Middle East was to appoint James Baker and Jimmy Carter as negotiators. When furor erupted at the prospect of two of the most ardent foes of Israel being suggested to basically ride "roughshod" over Israel, Kerry backtracked and blamed his staff for the idea. His staff was Susan Rice."

Lee Hamilton, as Lasky writes, is a key Obama advisor on Middle Eastern affairs. A former Indiana Representative, Hamilton led the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, which concluded, among other things, that the withdrawal of troops from Iraq should be coordinated with Syria and Iran! And that the U.S. should develop Syrian "goodwill" by pressuring Israel to surrender the Golan Heights and leave the West Bank — but not a word about dismantling Hamas or Hezbollah! Hamilton wrote in the NY Times that Hezbollah's "hatred was created by Israel; it wasn't there at the beginning."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor, has been one of Israel's most consistently hostile critics and one of Hamas's most ardent supporters, as well as a staunch admirer (both in writing and verbally) of Stephen Walt's and John Mearsheimer's virulently anti-Israel book "The Israel Lobby," which, among other things, contends that Jewish pressure, and not shared values, binds America and Israel together.

James ("F... the Jews") Baker, among the harshest detractors of Israel, has often engaged in raw anti-Semitic remarks, is known for coddling Middle East dictators (including Syria's Assad), and has been heavily invested (through the Carlyle Group) in the Israel-hating country of Saudi Arabia. In fact, Baker's law firm defended the Saudi Defense Minister who was sued for alleged complicity by the families of the World Trade Center victims.

Samantha Power, now on Obama's National Security Council, has advocated ending all U.S. military aid to Israel and written of her willingness to "alienate a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import [American Jews]...it may more crucially mean sacrificing...billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine."

Believe me, the above is the short list. As Glick has written: "In the past, while anti-Israel politicians, policy makers and opinion shapers were accepted in Washington, they would not have felt comfortable brandishing their anti-Israel positions as qualifying credentials for high position...today in Washington there are powerful circles of political players for whom a person's anti-Israel bona fides are his strongest suit."


Oh, I can hear the blather as I type: But what about all the Jews who voted for Obama and are in his cabinet and among his advisors? Make no mistake — Obama's Court Jews are identical to those of the past who financed, supported, licked the boots of, and sold out their people in order to gain the personal influence, privileges, wealth, and protection that the "nobles" afforded them. They helped Roman emperors kill Jews. They helped Hitler kill Jews. But after their groveling and traitorous service, they were blamed for economic downturns and used as scapegoats to explain away the failures of the evil regimes and leaders they abetted. Fools and dupes, to a person!

Journalist Melanie Phillips writes that "Obama is attempting to throw Israel under the Islamist bus, and he's getting American Jews to do his dirty work for him....none of this, however, should come as the slightest surprise to anyone who paid any attention to Obama's background, associations and friendships before he became President and to the cabal of Israel-bashers, appeasers and Jew-haters he appointed to his administration, with a few useful idiots thrown in for plausible deniability."

In an article entitled THE FINAL SOLUTION — What Hitler didn't finish, Obama will, blogger Daniel Greenfield (Sultanknish.blogspot.com) explains:

Obama has been clever about putting his Jewish appointees front and center. Like many minorities, some American Jews suffer from self-esteem problems that are soothed when they see a seeming acceptance. Of course what they fail to realize is that exploitation is not acceptance. And that Obama's appointees are creatures of his backers, Nazi collaborators like Soros, who have nothing but contempt for Jews, individually or collectively.

While outwardly courting Jews, Obama's people have also been quietly shoving Jewish organizations and their leaders into a corner. Within the Jewish organizational world there has been a silent but deadly takeover of major Jewish groups by left wing radicals. Former alumni of the far left wing and anti-Israel groups like Breira or Coname in the 70's have been elevated to key positions in such organizations as the UJA Federation. Behind the scenes any Jewish leaders who expressed even doubts about Obama during the primaries were intimidated and silenced. The overall idea is to keep a happy face pasted on American Jewry while the knives are out in the dark.

But why would people who hate Jews surround themselves with so many of them? As Don Vito Corleone warned his son Michael, "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." As much as the enemies of Jews hate them, they also fear them. They can't figure out how a historically besieged people — whose population today is about 14 million, as compared to, say, Muslims, whose population is 1.3 billion — have not only managed to survive the Jew-targeting Inquisition, Crusades, pogroms, concentration camps, and pandemic outbreaks of anti-Semitism, but to flourish and rise to the top echelons of any community they've ever lived in. In short, they want the brains of the Jews and also the ability to blame them when things go wrong.

But don't these smart Jews know they're being used? Yes and no. They've studied history, but they think that the passage of time has made them immune from mistakes of the past. Of course they're wrong. Fools and dupes always get fooled and duped. Unfortunately — actually, stupidly — too many Jews, over the ages, have been seduced by the hope-and-change rhetoric of the Left, so yearning are they to be "included" and "accepted" into cultures that have ultimately rejected them.

Just who are Obama's Court Jews?

Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff and, in my opinion, Chief of Dupes. As writer Judith Apter Klinghoffer reminds us: "By choosing a Jewish chief of staff to do the dirty work, Obama showed himself a 'worthy' successor to LBJ. Arthur Goldberg was LBJ's point man to read the riot act to Israel. It was his Jewish U.N. representative that was charged with berating Israel for daring to retaliate against Palestinian acts of terror in 1966 and to inform Israel that it should not rely on any American assistance against Nasser in May 1967." And now Emanuel is taking the bait, currying favor for his figurative 10-minutes of fame, the better to sell out his Israeli-born father and the land his father heroically fought for in the early years of Israel's existence.

David Axelrod, the chief strategist and media advisor for Obama's 2008 presidential campaign and now a White House insider, is not front-and-center about his hero's antagonism toward Israel. But as the old chestnut says: Silence is Consent!

Robert Malley is another fan of Hamas and Hezbollah. According to Wikipedia, Malley is the son of Simon Malley, an Egyptian-born Jewish journalist, and Barbara Silverstein, a New Yorker who worked for the U.N. delegation of the Algerian National Liberation Front. Both loathed Israel and apparently passed their toxic DNA onto their son. Malley has often called for an end to all aid to Israel.

Dennis Ross, Obama's special adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia, which includes Iran, participated in 12 years of failed Israeli-Palestinian "peace" efforts. In 2001, he suggested that future negotiations ought to be based on "something the parties have put on the table, and not [what] the United States has put on the table." Translated today, that would mean listening to the 22 hostile states that surround Israel and saying "majority rules!"

George Soros, the Budapest-born multibillionaire (and Nazi collaborator) has devoted his entire life, as writer Srdja Trifkovic points out, to supporting "increased government spending and tax increases, drug legalization, euthanasia, open borders and immigration, immigrant entitlements, feminism, free abortion-on-demand, affirmative action, and gay rights" and "remains primarily committed to destroying the remaining bastions of the family, sovereign nationhood, and Christian Faith...." He is also devoted to vilifying Israel and funding numerous groups that work unstintingly to bring about its destruction.

Again, this is the short list. But the entire list of Obama "advisors" on Middle East affairs is comprised of hard-core Leftists who want nothing more than to see America humiliated and Israel destroyed. As Lasky has said, "This is the company Barack Obama keeps."


Melanie Phillips calls the Obama administration's "malice" toward Israel "incomprehensible in its suicidal stupidity":

It is trying to make Israel play the role of Czechoslovakia in 1938, when Britain under Neville Chamberlain told it that if it didn't submit to the Nazis it would stand alone — with the result that the following year, Hitler invaded Poland. Determined to prove that history repeats itself the second time as tragedy, America is trying to force Israel to destroy its security by accepting the creation of a terrorist Iranistan on its doorstep, under the threat that otherwise the U.S. will not help protect its security by de-fanging Iran...but in doing so, the Obama administration is jeopardizing the security of America itself and the free world, not to mention the Arab states which have good reason to fear Iranian regional hegemony.

Indeed. As DEBKAfile reports:

  • Tehran itself will not let Washington dictate the limits of its expanding influence (or) nuclear aspirations.

  • Cairo and Riyadh will resist with all their might the U.S. bid to anoint Iran the crowning Middle East-Gulf power [and are] extremely concerned by Obama's public endorsement of Turkey as the senior Muslim power in the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia, a boost for Ankara's aspirations to resuscitate the Ottoman Empire.

  • Jerusalem will resist being cast into a peripheral role in the strategic and military processes going forward with regard to Iran, the Palestinians, Syria and their terrorist arms, Hezbollah and Hamas, all of which bear pivotally on Israel's future existence.

  • Like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the Netanyahu government may not accept being crushed between two hostile regional powers, Iran and Turkey, whose aggressive pretensions Washington is promoting.

Amil Taheri points out: "Convinced that the Obama administration is preparing to retreat from the Middle East, Iran's Khomeinist regime is intensifying its goal of regional domination. It has targeted six close allies of the U.S.: Egypt, Lebanon, Bahrain, Morocco, Kuwait and Jordan, all of which are experiencing economic and/or political crises....Khomeinist propaganda is trying to portray Iran as a rising 'superpower' in the making while the United States is presented as the 'sunset' power. The message is simple: The Americans are going, and we are coming....with pro-American and other democratic groups disheartened by the perceived weakness of the Obama administration, Tehran hopes its allies will win all the elections planned for this year in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories."

And writer Tom Gross says that "the threat of a nuclear arsenal in the hands of the only government in the world (Iran) that promotes suicide bombing as a matter of state policy (by its client militias in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere), and celebrates 'martyrdom of its fellow Muslims' in such attacks, is a threat quite unlike any the world has ever seen. The combination of weapons of mass destruction and jihadist ideology poses a problem of much greater magnitude than that when secular dictatorships and semi-dictatorships, such as Russia, China and North Korea and Pakistan, possess nuclear bombs. In addition to posing an existential threat to Israel, a nuclear Iran could mean the end of American influence in the Middle East. Tehran, not Washington would dominate oil in the region."

But none of these threats, not only to the Middle East but also to America, are of any import to President Obama. In his single-minded obsession to appease our enemies and get rid of his "Jewish problem," he is willing to sacrifice the safety and security of America, the country he can't stop apologizing for. Or is that he has a Muslim problem, and the Jews and Israel are simply in the way?

Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Heather Robinson, May 19, 2009.

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on his way to the White House later today to meet with President Obama, Israel faces a potentially existential threat from Iran, whose leadership has repeatedly stated its intention to destroy the Jewish state.President Obama told Newsweek magazine last week: "I've been very clear that I don't take any options off the table with respect to Iran. I don't take options off the table when it comes to U.S. security, period. What I have said is that we want to offer Iran an opportunity to align itself with international norms and international rules. I think, ultimately, that will be better for the Iranian people."

When asked if he expects U.S. ally Israel to refrain from taking military action in the face of existential threat, he said: "No, look, I understand very clearly that Israel considers Iran an existential threat, and given some of the statements that have been made by President Ahmadinejad, you can understand why. So their calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute. They're right there in range and I don't think it's my place to determine for the Israelis what their security needs are."

To me, the above sounds very reasonable and understanding of Israel's difficult position. While like many security-minded Americans who favor strong alliance with Israel, I have been concerned that President Obama might waver in his commitment to supporting this ally's right to self-defense (and incidentally, front line defense of the free world from Islamist extremism), I see reason to be cautiously optimistic that, as with his positions on U.S. security, President Obama will prove better than his critics' worst fears. In the meantime, let us support him in his efforts to employ diplomacy and sanctions, and hope they work to contain Iran. Israel's supporters do not prefer war.

That said, given the likelihood that, in exchange for U.S. support, the Obama administration may press Israel to pursue a peace process that would lead to creation of a Palestinian state in the short term, now is a good time to review what Israel's recent concessions in the name of peace have produced:

1) The Gaza withdrawal: in August, 2005, Israel evacuated Gaza, and instead of moderation, extremism in Gaza spread like a malignancy. Al Qaeda operatives infiltrated Gaza from Egypt, Sudan and Yemen, weapons and cash poured in, and Hamas undertook a years-long campaign of rocket terrorism aimed at civilians in Israel's southern towns.

2) The Lebanon withdrawal: Israel withdrew in May, 2000 from Lebanon, only to see Hezbollah, the terror network that struck the U.S. barracks in 1983, killing 241 Marines, further ensconce itself there as what the Lebanese President Lahoud termed a "legitimate political party." Hezbollah kidnapped three Israeli soldiers and an Israeli businessman in October 2000, and in 2002 began launching Katyusha missiles into northern Israeli towns, and attacking troops in northern Israel. In 2004, Israel freed over 400 live Arab prisoners in exchange for the businessman and the dead bodies of the soldiers kidnapped in 2000. In July 2006, Hezbollah terrorists infiltrated Israel's northern border, killing three Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two more. Israel launched the second Lebanon War to rescue the soldiers, whose dismembered bodies were eventually returned to Israel in exchange for four live Hezbollah militants, the bodies of 200 more, and convicted PLO child murderer Samir Kuntar.

3) The Oslo Peace Accords: for seven years, Israel returned to the negotiating table, conceding land in the face of continued terrorism. While Israeli leaders prepared their people for peace, Yasir Arafat preached war to his people in Arabic. The process culminated in Arafat's rejection, in 2000, of a Palestinian state that would have consisted of 95 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem. After rejecting the offer, Arafat and the Palestinians resumed of the intifadah, targeting Israelis in suicide bombings.

Senator John Kerry recently put it succinctly: "Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, only to face Hezbollah; Israel withdrew from Gaza, only to face Hamas rockets. Israel is not about to let the same thing happen in the West Bank, nor should they."

The recent history of U.S. peacemaking efforts in the region is rife with hubris: for decades, U.S. Presidents have flattered themselves they could impose a solution in the region without addressing the core problem: the leadership of Arab countries surrounding Israel poisons its people via propaganda and funds terrorism to keep the essential, destructive dynamic in play. Terror networks, some operating semi-autonomously, find haven in these countries to conduct their attacks. The idea of a Palestinian state is a worthy dream. But unless and until Arab leadership evolves, any Palestinian state created in the near term will almost certainly be a terror state. Let us hope President Obama is realistic enough to grasp this unfortunate reality.

Heather Robinson is an independent journalist who specializes in writing about the Middle East, profiling offbeat characters and humanitarians (not always mutually exclusive), and helping readers happily navigate life.

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, May 19, 2009.

This was written by. Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus of The Washington Times. This aritcle appeared today in the Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/19/ the-frilly-valentine-is-not-for-friends/


Benjamin Netanyahu is back in town, and he could make Barack Obama's life easier if he would just go away. The president is trying to concentrate on the frilly Valentine he's taking to the Muslims next month in Cairo, the latest stop on his global blush, bow low and apologize tour.

Mr. Netanyahu is an unwelcome reminder of the reality lying in ambush out there, where things go bump not in the night but in midafternoon, and all manner of evil lurks in the hearts of barbarians. Mr. Obama thinks a good shoeshine, a working teleprompter and a pretty speech can transform that ugly reality into something nice that maybe even smells good. Mr. Netanyahu and his countrymen have to deal with an ugly reality that stinks. They understand what Dr. Johnson was talking about with his celebrated observation that "the prospect of hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully." Survival in the Middle East is a full-time job.

The Israeli prime minister, who grew up in America and has been here before as prime minister, arrived in an Obamaworld he couldn't recognize and where he is not particularly welcome. The War on Terror is over, replaced by an "enhanced" unpleasantness in Afghanistan that we're supposed to call an "overseas contingency operation," where terrorists are "improvisational ideologues" and once captured can be politely called "custodial informants." We lost the War on Drugs, and the new drug czar suggests that we not call it a war. "Dialogue with controlled-substance entrepreneurs" would improve the self-esteem of the drug dealers. We don't do deficits any more; they're "inverted surpluses." No one will be killed in Mr. Obama's "augmented" war in Afghanistan; the dead will merely be "reassigned to operations in a command in another realm."

Once explained to Mr. Netanyahu, the new enhanced road map to a viable settlement in the Middle East through the peace process (are any cliches missing?) was plain and clear. Concessions are for the Jews to make, as he learned Monday at the White House, and rewards are for the Palestinians.

Mr. Obama and his policymakers, not all of whom assign Israeli security a particularly high priority, are determined to impose the Palestinian version of a two-state solution on Israel and freeze expansion of Jewish settlements on territory occupied since the Arabian knights lost the Six-Day War. The Jewish settlers get in the way of the Palestinian gunners firing rockets into villages in northern Israel. Mr. Netanyahu, on the other hand, is more interested in what the West — i.e., Israel and the United States — can do to deter Iran, which is furiously developing nuclear weapons with which to rearrange the topography and demography of Israel. Mr. Obama thinks milk toast and weak tea, which he calls "diplomacy," can make a Christian (so to speak) out of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This in turn will invite normal diplomatic ties between Israel and its Muslim neighbors. Mr. Netanyahu recognizes this as more of Mr. Obama's pie in the sky, which is indigestible when served with milk toast and weak tea.

"There is a sense of urgency on our side," Uzi Arad, the prime minister's adviser on national security, told correspondents on the eve of Monday's session at the White House. But the only urgency apparent in Washington is for more talk.

Authentic peace in the Middle East, which has never known authentic peace, will continue to be elusive well into the outer eons. President Obama thinks endless negotiations on agreements the Palestinians won't keep will encourage the Arab states to join the "pressure," such as it may be, to persuade Iran to straighten up and fly right. The Israelis see getting tough with Iran as the way to exploit Arab fears of Iran as a rogue power, mistrusted by everyone and emboldened by its nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama may be sincere in his confidence that his soaring oratory can make rough places smooth and hard places plain, even persuade Arabs to like Jews, but talk is cheaper in the Middle East than anywhere else on the planet.

In his conversations with Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Obama, comfortable in his bubble of mindless worship and wonder, with nothing to lose but his fading reputation as a messiah, is talking to someone with everything to lose. Israel is surrounded by mortal enemies, heavily armed and getting more so. Israel's enemies can continue to lose the wars they start, and live to rearm and make war again. Israel loses once, and it's all over. Like the prospect of the rope, this, too, concentrates the rational mind wonderfully well.

Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Molly, May 19, 2009.

Dear Congressman Honda:

We are the Secular Christians for Zion and we are counting on you and your colleagues to ensure that our new president is not soiled by "king" Abdullah's rubbish.


Adbullah of Jordan is a mooch. How DARE he revise history at israel's expense!

Listen to his latest "royal" BS:

Abdullah pointed out that today is the anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel, which led to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fleeing their homes.

"This day, May 15, throughout the world, people commemorate the Nakba, the Catastrophe that began for the Palestinian people 61 years ago," he said. "This history has been a catastrophe not only for Palestinians, but for the entire Middle East — and I would say the entire world. As we join in remembering all that has been lost, as we feel compassion for all who have suffered, let us also commit ourselves to joining the solution as well."


Such "chutzpah" from an Islamic who owes his very existence to the generosity of Jews and on whose lands he lives, mooching off the US taxpayer!

When the tiny state of Israel was carved out of Jewish Palestine, the father of this Hashemite mooch murdered 10,000 of Arafat's arab followers and the new "king" drove them out of what became the new state of Jordan. Moreover, when Israel was created, the arabs marshaled all their forces and drove over 750,000 JEWS out of their homes and farms that they'd owned for hundreds of years in the arab regions surrounding the new state of Israel and sent them packing to Israel, Canada, Latin America and Europe.

How DARE this pompous little man sell this tripe to our president.

Mr. Obama, we are NOT buying into these atrocious lies. We know better. Because WE ARE THE SECULAR CHRISTIANS FOR ZION AND WE SUPPORT ISRAEL. We say: Restore Jewish Palestine from the ocean to the sea the way Israel was promised to be before the Brit cheated the Jews out of their heartland.

As for these itinerant arabs who swarmed into Israel and its territories: Send them back to where they came from in the surrounding arab regions and if they won't go, then give them the same choice Arafat promised the Israelis: Drive them into the ocean and make the rest of them drink the sea of Galilee!

Viva Israel


Contact Molly at pelago2000@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, May 19, 2009.

This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared in the Spectator. It is archived at


Two points arise from the apparent victory by the Sri Lankans against the Tamil Tigers. The first is that this has been achieved by flying in the face of the conventional wisdom that terrorism can never be defeated by military means but only by negotiation, 'peace processes' and compromise. The Sri Lankans tried that some years ago, with the result that the Tigers were enormously strengthened and merely ratcheted up their terrorist attacks.

As a result of that experience, the Sri Lankans decided that the only way to defeat the Tigers was to destroy them militarily. Consequently, they have waged a war against them as notable for its ruthlessness as for its strategic and tactical skill. In particular, they ensured that the media was excluded from the theatre of war so that what they were doing was not fully exposed to scrutiny.

The lesson to learn from all this would therefore seem to be that terrorist insurgencies can only be defeated by military means — which in turn can only work if such measures are not undermined by the queasy neo-pacifism and defeatism of the west expressed through the surrender monkeys of human rights lawyers, NGOs and the media. In the Times, however, Michael Clarke, Rector of the Royal United Services Institute, warns that it may be premature to arrive at such a conclusion since the refusal of the Sri Lankans to try to win hearts and minds may yet mean that Tamil terrorism returns at a future date. Well, we shall see whether that turns out to be true or not.

But what is undeniable is that that war against the Tamil Tigers has exposed the rank hypocrisy and double standards of a western world that demonises and delegitimises Israel, on the basis of a false accusation that it has disproportionately targeted civilians in a theatre of war, while remaining relatively muted in the face of evidence which has emerged — despite the media restrictions — that the suffering of civilians under Sri Lankan bombardment (whether or not the Sri Lankans tried hard enough to minimise their suffering) has vastly exceeded that of the Palestinians. Hospitals have been repeatedly shelled. Thousands of civilians have been trapped and unknown numbers have died. The BBC says more than 70,000 people have been killed in this conflict, while the United Nations says it thinks 265,000 people have been displaced. As even Jonathan Steele writes in today's Guardian:

There has to be relief that the worst suffering of the quarter of a million Tamils who were trapped on the island's northern beaches is over. Cowering under government artillery fire, and shot by Tamil Tiger troops if they tried to flee, they have lived for four months in infinitely worse conditions than the people of Gaza during Israel's invasion in December. Palestinians were at least in their own homes, with supplies of food and water, however inadequate. The shelterless masses huddled along the lagoons and sand banks of Sri Lanka's Mullaitivu coastline had nothing except panic, grief and the sight and sound of the dying. The prolonged hell they have been through far outweighs the sudden horror of the tsunami which swept over this same coast four years ago.

Sure, there are some protests. But where are the calls by academics or trade unions to boycott Sri Lanka? Where are the denunciations of Sri Lankan 'atrocities' by the bishops and archbishops of the Church of England? Where are the passionate and emotive TV documentaries about the plight of the Tamils, the one-sided grillings of the Sri Lankans on the Today programme, the front page splashes and multi-part newspaper features on the Sri Lankans' supposed breaches of international law, the NGOs' appeals for humanitarian aid for the beseiged Tamils, the attempts by human rights lawyers to prosecute Sri Lanka's military for 'war crimes'? No, all these things are reserved instead for Israel, which has demonstrably gone out of its way to avoid civilian casualties as far as humanly possible and yet upon whose imagined crimes against humanity the western intelligentsia — which has barely bestrirred itself over the Tamils — obsessively dwells.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Mark Steyn, May 19, 2009.

On Holocaust Memorial Day 2008, a group of just under 100 people — Londoners and a few visitors — took a guided tour of the old Jewish East End. They visited, among other sites of interest, the birthplace of my old chum Lionel Bart, the author of Oliver! Three generations of schoolchildren have grown up singing Bart's lyric:

Consider yourself
At 'ome!
Consider yourself
One of the family!

Those few dozen London Jews considered themselves at 'ome. But they weren't. Not any more. The tour was abruptly terminated when the group was pelted with stones, thrown by "youths" — or to be slightly less evasive, in the current euphemism of Fleet Street, "Asian" youths. "If you go any further, you'll die," they shouted, in between the flying rubble.

A New Yorker who had just moved to Britain to start a job at the Metropolitan University had her head cut open and had to be taken to the Royal London Hospital at Whitechapel, causing her to miss the Holocaust Day "interfaith memorial service" at the East London Central Synagogue. Her friend, Eric Litwack from Canada, was also struck but did not require stitches. But if you hadn't recently landed at Heathrow, it wasn't that big a deal, not these days: Nobody was killed or permanently disfigured. And given the number of Jewish community events that now require security, perhaps Her Majesty's Constabulary was right and these Londoners walking the streets of their own city would have been better advised to do so behind a police escort.


A European Holocaust Memorial Day on which Jews are stoned sounds like a parody of the old joke that the Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz. According to a 2005 poll by the University of Bielefeld, 62 percent of Germans "are sick of all the harping on about German crimes against the Jews" — which is a cheerfully straightforward way of putting it. Nevertheless, when it comes to "harping on," these days it's the Jews who are mostly on the receiving end. While we're reprising old gags, here's one a reader reminded me of a couple of years ago, during Israel's famously "disproportionate" incursion into Lebanon: One day the U.N. Secretary General proposes that, in the interest of global peace and harmony, the world's soccer players should come together and form one United Nations global soccer team.

"Great idea," says his deputy. "Er, but who would we play?"

"Israel, of course."

Ha-ha. It always had a grain of truth, now it's the whole loaf.

"Israel is unfashionable," a Continental foreign minister said to me a decade back. "But maybe Israel will change, and then fashions will change." Fashions do change. But however Israel changes, this fashion won't. The shift of most (non-American) Western opinion against the Jewish state that began in the 1970s was, as my Continental politician had it, simply a reflection of casting: Israel was no longer the underdog but the overdog, and why would that appeal to a post-war polytechnic Euro Left unburdened by Holocaust guilt?

Fair enough. Fashions change. But the new Judenhass is not a fashion, simply a stark reality that will metastasize in the years ahead and leave Israel isolated in the international "community" in ways that will make the first decade of this century seem like the good old days.

A few months after the curtailed Holocaust Day tour, I found myself in that particular corner of Tower Hamlets for the first time in years. Specifically, on Cable Street — the scene of a famous battle in 1936, when Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, in a crude exercise of political muscle, determined to march through the heart of Jewish East London. They were turned back by a mob of local Jews, Irish Catholic dockers, and Communist agitators, all standing under the Spanish Civil War slogan: "No Pasaran." They shall not pass.

From "No Pasaran" to "If you go any further, you'll die" is a story not primarily of anti-Semitism but of unprecedented demographic transformation. Beyond the fashionable "anti-Zionism" of the Euro Left is a starker reality: The demographic energy not just in Lionel Bart's East End but in almost every Western European country is "Asian." Which is to say, Muslim. A recent government statistical survey reported that the United Kingdom's Muslim population is increasing ten times faster than the general population. Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp, and many other Continental cities from Scandinavia to the Côte d'Azur will reach majority Muslim status in the next few years.

Brussels has a Socialist mayor, which isn't that surprising, but he presides over a caucus a majority of whose members are Muslim, which might yet surprise those who think we're dealing with some slow, gradual, way-off-in-the-future process here. But so goes Christendom at the dawn of the third millennium: the ruling party of the capital city of the European Union is mostly Muslim.

There are generally two responses to this trend: The first is that it's like a cast change in Cats or, perhaps more precisely, David Merrick's all-black production of Hello, Dolly! Carol Channing and her pasty prancing waiters are replaced by Pearl Bailey and her ebony chorus, but otherwise the show is unchanged. Same set, same words, same arrangements: France will still be France, Germany Germany, Belgium Belgium.

The second response is that the Islamicization of Europe entails certain consequences, and it might be worth exploring what these might be. There are already many points of cultural friction — from British banks' abolition of children's "piggy banks" to the enjoining of public doughnut consumption by Brussels police during Ramadan. And yet on one issue there is remarkable comity between the aging ethnic Europeans and their young surging Muslim populations: A famous poll a couple of years back found that 59 percent of Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.

Fifty-nine percent? What the hell's wrong with the rest of you? Hey, relax: In Germany, it was 65 percent; Austria, 69 percent; the Netherlands, 74 percent. For purposes of comparison, in a recent poll of Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — i.e., the "moderate" Arab world — 79 percent of respondents regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace. As far as I know, in the last year or two, they haven't re-tested that question in Europe, possibly in case Israel now scores as a higher threat level in the Netherlands than in Yemen.

To be sure, there are occasional arcane points of dispute: one recalls, in the wake of the July 7 bombings, the then London Mayor Ken Livingstone's somewhat tortured attempts to explain why blowing up buses in Tel Aviv is entirely legitimate whereas blowing up buses in Bloomsbury is not. Yet these are minimal bumps on a smooth glide path: The more Europe's Muslim population grows, the more restive and disassimilated it becomes, the more enthusiastically the establishment embraces "anti-Zionism," as if the sinister Jewess is the last virgin left to toss in the volcano — which, given the 13-year old "chavs" and "slappers" face down in pools of their own vomit in most British shopping centers of a Friday afternoon, may indeed be the case. For today's Jews, unlike on Cable Street in 1936, there are no Catholic dockworkers or Communist agitators to stand shoulder to shoulder. In post-Christian Europe, there aren't a lot of the former (practicing Catholics or practicing dockers), and as for the intellectual Left, it's more enthusiastic in its support of Hamas than many Gazans.

To which there are many Israelis who would brusquely reply: So what? Pity the poor Jew who has ever relied on European "friends." Yet there is a difference of scale between the well-established faculty-lounge disdain for "Israeli apartheid" and a mass psychosis so universal it's part of the air you breathe. For a glimpse of the future, consider the (for the moment) bizarre circumstances of the recent Davis Cup First Round matches in Sweden. They had been scheduled long ago to be played in the Baltiska Hallen stadium in Malmo. Who knew which team the Swedes would draw? Could have been Chile, could have been Serbia. Alas, it was Israel.

Malmo is Sweden's most Muslim city, and citing security concerns, the local council ordered the three days of tennis to be played behind closed doors. Imagine being Amir Hadad and Andy Ram, the Israeli doubles players, or Simon Aspelin and Robert Lindstedt, the Swedes. This was supposed to be their big day. But the vast stadium is empty, except for a few sports reporters and team officials. And just outside the perimeter up to 10,000 demonstrators are chanting, "Stop the match!" and maybe, a little deeper into the throng, they're shouting, "We want to kill all Jews worldwide" (as demonstrators in Copenhagen, just across the water, declared just a few weeks earlier). Did Aspelin and Lindstedt wonder why they couldn't have drawn some less controversial team, like Zimbabwe or Sudan? By all accounts, it was a fine match, thrilling and graceful, with good sportsmanship on both sides. Surely, such splendid tennis could have won over the mob, and newspapers would have reported that by the end of the match the Israeli players had the crowd with them all the way. But they shook 'em off at Helsingborg.

Do you remember the "road map" summit held in Jordan just after the U.S. invasion of Iraq? It seemed a big deal at the time: The leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the U.S. president, all the A-list dictators of the Arab League. Inside the swank resort, it was all very collegial, smiles and handshakes. Outside, flags fluttered — Jordan's, America's, Saudi Arabia's, Egypt's, Palestine's. But not Israel's. King Abdullah of Jordan had concluded it would be too provocative to advertise the Zionist Entity's presence on Jordanian soil even at a summit supposedly boasting they were all on the same page. Malmo's tennis match observed the same conventions: I'm sure the Swedish tennis wallahs were very gracious hosts behind the walls of the stockade, and the unmarked car to the airport was top of the line. How smoothly the furtive maneuvers of the Middle East transfer to the wider world.


When Western governments are as reluctant as King Abdullah to fly the Star of David, those among the citizenry who choose to do so have a hard time. In Britain in January, while "pro-Palestinian" demonstrators were permitted to dress up as hook-nosed Jews drinking the blood of Arab babies, the police ordered counter-protesters to put away their Israeli flags. In Alberta, in the heart of Calgary's Jewish neighborhood, the flag of Hizballah (supposedly a proscribed terrorist organization) was proudly waved by demonstrators, but one solitary Israeli flag was deemed a threat to the Queen's peace and officers told the brave fellow holding it to put it away or be arrested for "inciting public disorder." In Germany, a student in Duisburg put the Star of David in the window of an upstairs apartment on the day of a march by the Islamist group Milli Görüs, only to have the cops smash his door down and remove the flag. He's now trying to get the police to pay for a new door. Ah, those Jews. It's always about money, isn't it?

Peter, the student in Duisberg, says he likes to display the Israeli flag because anti-Semitism in Europe is worse than at any other time since the Second World War. Which is true. But, if you look at it from the authorities' point of view, it's not about Jew-hatred; it's a simple numbers game. If a statistically insignificant Jewish population gets upset, big deal. If the far larger Muslim population — and, in some French cities, the youth population (i.e., the demographic that riots) is already pushing 50 percent — you have a serious public-order threat on your hands. We're beyond the anti-Semitic and into the ad hoc utilitarian: The King Abdullah approach will seem like the sensible way to avoid trouble. To modify the UN joke: Whom won't we play? Israel, of course. Not in public.

One Saturday afternoon a few weeks ago, a group wearing "BOYCOTT ISRAEL" T-shirts entered a French branch of Carrefour, the world's largest supermarket chain, and announced themselves. They then systematically advanced down every aisle examining every product, seizing all the items made in Israel and piling them into carts to take away and destroy. Judging from the video they made, the protesters were mostly Muslim immigrants and a few French leftists. But more relevant was the passivity of everyone else in the store, both staff and shoppers, all of whom stood idly by as private property was ransacked and smashed, and many of whom when invited to comment expressed support for the destruction. "South Africa started to shake once all countries started to boycott their products," one elderly lady customer said. "So what you're doing, I find it good."

Others may find Germany in the '30s the more instructive comparison. "It isn't silent majorities that drive things, but vocal minorities," the Canadian public intellectual George Jonas recently wrote. "Don't count heads; count decibels. All entities — the United States, the Western world, the Arab street — have prevailing moods, and it's prevailing moods that define aggregates at any given time." Last December, in a well-planned attack on iconic Bombay landmarks symbolizing power and wealth, Pakistani terrorists nevertheless found time to divert one-fifth of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city's poor in a nondescript building. If this was a territorial dispute over Kashmir, why kill the only rabbi in Bombay? Because Pakistani Islam has been in effect Arabized. Demographically, in Europe and elsewhere, Islam has the numbers. But ideologically, radical Islam has the decibels — in Turkey, in the Balkans, in Western Europe.

And the prevailing mood in much of the world makes Israel an easy sacrifice. Long before Muslims are a statistical majority, there will be three permanent members of the Security Council — Britain, France, Russia — for whom the accommodation of Islam is a domestic political imperative.


On the heels of his call for the incorporation of Sharia within British law, the Archbishop of Canterbury gave an interview to the Muslim News praising Islam for making "a very significant contribution to getting a debate about religion into public life." Well, that's one way of putting it. The urge to look on the bright side of its own remorseless cultural retreat will intensify: Once Europeans have accepted a not entirely voluntary biculturalism, they will see no reason why Israel should not do the same, and they will embrace a one-state, one-man, one-vote solution for the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

The Muslim world has spent decades peddling the notion that the reason a vast oil-rich region stretching thousands of miles is politically deformed and mired in grim psychoses is all because of a tiny strip of turf barely wider than my New Hampshire township. It will make an ever more convenient scapegoat for the problems of a far vaster territory from the mountains of Morne to the Urals. There was a fair bit of this in the days after 9/11. As Richard Ingrams wrote on the following weekend in the London Observer: "Who will dare to damn Israel?"

Well, take a number and get in line. The dust had barely settled on the London Tube bombings before a reader named Derrick Green sent me a congratulatory e-mail: "I bet you Jewish supremacists think it is Christmas come early, don't you? Incredibly, you are now going to get your own way even more than you did before, and the British people are going to be dragged into more wars for Israel."

So it will go. British, European, and even American troops will withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and a bomb will go off in Madrid or Hamburg or Manchester, and there will be nothing left to blame except Israeli "disproportion." For the remnants of European Jewry, the already discernible migration of French Jews to Quebec, Florida, and elsewhere will accelerate. There are about 150,000 Jews in London today — it's the thirteenth biggest Jewish city in the world. But there are approximately one million Muslims. The highest number of Jews is found in the 50-54 age group; the highest number of Muslims are found in the four-years-and-under category. By 2025, there will be Jews in Israel, and Jews in America, but not in many other places. Even as the legitimacy of a Jewish state is rejected, the Jewish diaspora — the Jewish presence in the wider world — will shrivel.

And then, to modify Richard Ingrams, who will dare not to damn Israel? There'll still be a Holocaust Memorial Day, mainly for the pleasures it affords to chastise the new Nazis. As Anthony Lipmann, the Anglican son of an Auschwitz survivor, wrote in 2005: "When on 27 January I take my mother's arm — tattoo number A-25466 — I will think not just of the crematoria and the cattle trucks but of Darfur, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Jenin, Fallujah." Jenin?

You can see why they'll keep Holocaust Day on the calendar: In an age when politicians are indifferent or downright hostile to Israel's "right to exist," it's useful to be able to say, "But some of my best photo-ops are Jewish."

The joke about Mandatory Palestine was that it was the twice-promised land. But isn't that Europe, too? And perhaps Russia and maybe Canada, a little ways down the line? Two cultures jostling within the same piece of real estate. Not long ago, I found myself watching the video of another "pro-Palestinian" protest in central London with the Metropolitan Police retreating up St. James's Street to Piccadilly in the face of a mob hurling traffic cones and jeering, "Run, run, you cowards!" and "Allahu akbar!" You would think the deluded multi-culti progressives would understand: In the end, this isn't about Gaza, this isn't about the Middle East; it's about them. It may be some consolation to an ever-lonelier Israel that, in one of history's bleaker jests, in the coming Europe the Europeans will be the new Jews.

Mark Steyn is the author of America Alone and a columnist for National Review. His piece on snark ran in our February issue.

This is from Commentary Magazine
www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/ israel-today--the-west-tomorrow-15134

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, May 19, 2009.

With the United States battling Islamist extremists, making America's case to Muslims around the world has never been more of a priority for policymakers. Unfortunately, the State Department continues to take a counterproductive approach: serving as a veritable infomercial promoting Islamist organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) while giving the back of the hand to the very anti-jihadist Muslims that Washington should be cultivating. The latest example is a State Department booklet issued in March titled "Being Muslim in America."

It is part of an outreach effort that began under President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and is moving forward under President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The goal behind publication of the 64-page booklet is laudable: to arm consular officers and diplomats with information they can take to Muslims around the world to rebut slanders about U.S. "persecution" of Muslims. The booklet deluges readers with color pictures, statistical tables and individual profiles in an effort to show the world that American Muslims are a success story, noting that they have become entrepreneurs, professional athletes, entertainers, doctors, soldiers, firefighters, politicians, fashion designers, and pianists.

And as we'll show in more detail below, many slanders against the United States come from the same groups that are portrayed favorably in the State Department booklet.The front cover has a picture of two Muslim girls playing basketball at a school near Detroit: One is wearing traditional dress, the other more modern dress. It's no ordinary basketball game, because there's a deeper sociopolitical message that Foggy Bottom wants to send to the world: The girls "compete fiercely on the basketball court in a sport that blends individual skills and team effort. They — along with the other men, women and children in the publication — demonstrate every day what it is like to be Muslim in America." The booklet is replete with dozens of pictures of Muslims playing basketball, praying; talking about "diversity" at a mosque; attending interfaith gatherings "to celebrate diversity and tolerance," and "brainstorm[ing] ways to solve problems in their community." There is even a color-coded state-by-state map showing "Mosque Distribution in the United States."

The purpose of publishing "Being Muslim in America" is "to disabuse people of wildly false myths of the United States — that 'Muslims are repressed, marginalized, fill in the blanks,' " according to Michael Friedman, division chief of print publications with the State Department's Bureau of International Information Programs, which is overseeing distribution of the publication. Although State doesn't have a specific target number of copies that it is looking to sell or give away, Friedman said a similar 2002 State Department report titled "Muslim Life in America" had 400,000 print copies distributed worldwide and was translated into 28 languages. "It is conceivable that this one could reach that level," he told IPT News.

In addition, both "Muslim Life in America" and "Being Muslim in America" are featured on State Department web sites, here and here.

Asked whether similar booklets had been produced for other faiths, Friedman said no. With limited funding available, decision was made to produce a publication on American Muslims because "the struggle against Islamic terrorism is a struggle for hearts and minds in the Muslim world," he said.

Faulty Examples Showcased

Unfortunately, the substance of the booklet is so flawed that it could undermine the struggle against this form of radicalism. It perpetuates the mythology that American Muslims are united in the belief that law enforcement and the public are willing to flout innocent Muslims' civil rights post-September 11, describing American Muslim reactions to the attacks as follows:

"A new, truly American Islam is emerging, shaped by American freedoms, but also by the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks — planned and executed by non-Americans — [which] raised suspicions among other Americans whose immediate responses, racial profiling among them, triggered in return a measure of Muslim-American alienation."


"Sadly, suspicions of this kind are not uncommon — in the United States or in other nations — during wartime or when outside attack is feared. But 2008 is not 2002, when fears and suspicions were at their height. Context is also important: Every significant immigrant group has in the United States faced, and overcame, a degree of discrimination and resentment."

This is an extremely tendentious, even intellectually dishonest, description of September 11 and its aftermath. From reading it, one would have no idea that there have been numerous convictions and guilty pleas on terrorism-related charges since September 11 that involved Muslims living in the United States, including terrorist plots to attack the military base at Ft. Dix, N.J., to create a terrorist training camp in Bly, Oregon and to attack U.S. military and Jewish targets in California.

Also omitted from the booklet is the fact that organizations like CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) were listed by the government as unindicted co-conspirators in the federal government's prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) — in which the Justice Department won convictions of five former HLF officials for providing money to the terrorist organization Hamas. But from reading this passage in "Being Muslim in America," one would get the impression that public concern about Islamist terror has no basis in reality and is merely the result of backward Americans' "discrimination and resentment."

One picture on page 15 of the booklet shows people marching under a CAIR banner and has a caption reading: "Muslims march to support volunteerism." The identical picture appeared at the top of CAIR's website when IPT News accessed it May 15.

In reality, CAIR was created as a front for Hamas and it has defended radical Islamists since 1994. See the IPT dossier on CAIR here.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad typifies this see-no-evil attitude toward jihadist terror. He has repeatedly defended the HLF. At a May 2003 forum at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, an audience member commented that the Justice Department has released reams of information showing that the HLF and another charity whose assets were frozen "have direct connections and in fact their leadership was the leadership of al Qaeda and Hamas." Awad replied: "I am sure if we...put under the microscope, every major civic or political organization in this country, including the Red Cross, you will see that some dollars went here and there in some country, but you don't shut down the entire operation of the Red Cross."

CAIR officials dismissed the verdict of 12 jurors in HLF's Hamas-financing trial as "based more on fear-mongering than on the facts" and predicted it would be overturned on appeal.

Awad has steadfastly defended Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) supporter Sami Al-Arian, despite evidence that Al-Arian served on the PIJ governing board. Al-Arian is fighting a criminal contempt charge, triggered by his refusal to testify before a federal grand jury investigating terror financing in Virginia despite a grant of immunity. He claims his 2006 plea agreement to conspiring to provide goods and services to the PIJ absolved him of any future testimony, be it voluntary or compelled by subpoena. The plea agreement itself contains no such language. U.S. District Judge James S. Moody blasted Al-Arian as a "master manipulator" at his sentencing in the PIJ support case, saying Al-Arian lied to the public about his PIJ support.

Yet, during an August 2008 forum on the contempt case, Awad argued it was motivated by bigotry against Muslims:

"And I believe he's being punished for this, belonging to a minority — Palestinian, Arab, Muslim in America is not like the best thing to be in America today. So he's being the victim of this malicious misunderstanding in this midst of increased Islamophobia in America."

Ignoring Moderate Muslim Viewpoints

Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix, Arizona doctor who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, likened the booklet's depiction of Muslim life in the United States to Cold War-era propaganda falsely portraying Communist dictatorships as "worker's paradises" in which everyone was working toward a common goal and factionalism didn't exist. American Muslims are divided between Islamists seeking to establish a caliphate and non-Islamists who want to live under the American Constitution on equal terms with non-Muslims, Jasser said. And similar divisions exist in the Middle East between non-Islamists and Islamists.

"In some ways, it's insulting to Muslims in the Middle East — if we need to portray Muslims as being 'normal' in America," Jasser told IPT News. "It's almost as if we have something to be sorry for in America." Jasser said he would prefer that the State Department not be in the business of distributing a booklet about Islam in this country. "But if they decide to get into it, they need to talk about the ideological differences" among Muslims in the United States, he said. If State fails to do this, Muslims reading this booklet around the world "will wonder why State won't talk about the real schisms in Islam — schisms they see in their own lives."

No less disturbing is the fact that time and again, "Being Muslim in America" confers undeserved legitimacy on radical Islamist groups and individuals, while whitewashing radical groups. For example, Muslims pictured under a CAIR banner are described as marching "to support volunteerism." On the same page, Salam Al-Marayati of MPAC is cited as an authority on "the American Muslim identity." NYPD Muslim Chaplain Khalid Latif, who helped quash a debate on a college campus over the controversial Danish Muhammad cartoons, is also the subject of a glowing profile. Ingrid Mattson's election as ISNA president in 2006 is included as part of a "Timeline of Key Events" in American Muslim history.

No mention is made, however, of questionable statements and activities of Islamist groups and persons receiving favorable treatment in the booklet. CAIR officials' past statements in support of Hamas and CAIR's connections with the Muslim Brotherhood are ignored. Readers are left in the dark about Al-Marayati's statement during a September 11, 2001 appearance on a Loa Angeles radio program, where he suggested that Israel might have been behind the attacks on America earlier in the day:

"If we're going to look at suspects, we should look to groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies."

In March 2003 MPAC issued a counterterrorism policy paper advocating the removal of Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad from the U.S. government list of designated terrorist organizations.

In a January 19, 2009 Los Angeles Times op-ed, Al-Marayati attacked Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca for supporting Israel's military operation against Hamas' terror infrastructure in Gaza. As American public officials endorse Israel's "disproportionate military attacks against the Palestinians — put alongside images of carnage and destruction in Gaza," Al-Marayati wrote, they create "the best possible propaganda for fueling anti-Americanism in the Muslim world."

The MPAC boss whitewashed the fact that Hamas (along with its backers in Tehran and Damascus) bears full moral responsibility for the carnage — first by firing rockets into Israel, second by locating its fighters and weapons inside densely populated civilian areas, effectively turning Palestinian noncombatants into human shields.

And nothing was said about Latif's threatening March 2006 letter to NYU President Johan Sexton in which he suggested there would be trouble if the controversial Danish Mohammed cartoons were displayed. ISNA President Mattson's 2007 remarks rationalizing violent extremism as possibly "the only rational choice" to effect change in repressive states also didn't make the cut.

The booklet's bibliography is similarly slanted with books like John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed's "Who Speaks For Islam?," as well as "Religion and Immigration: Christian, Jewish and Muslim Experiences in the United States," edited by Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, Jan I. Smith and John Esposito; and "Mecca and Main Street: Muslim Life in America after 9/11" by Geneive Abdo, who spoke at a March 2007 CAIR fundraiser in Florida.

Esposito can fairly be described as an apologist for radical Islamists, having spoken at CAIR fundraisers, testified as a defense expert in the HLF trial and championed Al-Arian (see page 13 of the link) as "an extraordinarily bright, articulate scholar and intellectual-activist, a man of conscience with a strong commitment to peace and social justice."

Non-Islamist Muslim organizations like Jasser's AIFD and Muslims Against Sharia were ignored in the State Department booklet, while Islamist groups and individuals, including organizations like CAIR, MPAC and ISNA, got what amounted to an infomercial.

The State Department's Friedman dismissed concerns about the pro-Islamist bias of the material. "The U.S. government is not endorsing any of these people or organizations," he told IPT News. "Our audience is more likely to be an Indonesian schoolchild who is not likely to be Googling the names of the organizations" like CAIR, MPAC or ISNA, Friedman said. The government's intent in publishing the booklet is to help a "young foreign service officer who is going into a room in Indonesia or Nigeria, and those kids are looking at him and saying: 'Don't they hate Muslims in America?' "

Given financial constraints facing the State Department, it is essential to get the most "bang for the buck," Friedman added, and the best way to ensure that occurred was to produce a publication emphasizing that Muslims in America participate in "all walks of life" rather than a conversation "at a higher intellectual level" explaining the ideological war within Islam. "Being Muslim in America" is "essentially a picture book intended on disabusing people of the horrible myths of what goes on here. To get into [philosophical debates about the direction of Islam] in the context of a lighter essay detracts from the particular, narrow context of this publication," he said.

Non-Islamist Muslims who have read the document strongly disagree.

Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims Against Sharia, said the State Department booklet "absolutely" legitimates Muslim Brotherhood-type organizations and undermines non-Islamists like him. "It boggles my mind how people who are supposed to protect us (the government) are advancing our enemies' agenda," he told IPT News.

According to AIFD's Jasser, by quoting Islamists like Mattson, the State Department is "reinforcing continued denial from Muslims that we have any role to play in a counter-jihad within Islam." When the State Department gives a platform to members of organizations like CAIR and ISNA (while ignoring the other side), "it sets things back, telling Muslims they don't have to reform their own house," Jasser said. "You tell Muslims these [Islamists] are the people we need to deal with."

And "Being Muslim in America" is not the only example of the messages of weakness that the State Department sends to the Muslim world. Elsewhere at www.america.gov, the State Department's Middle East & North Africa section of the site is replete with items like the transcript of a press conference in which Obama and Jordanian King Abdullah suggest that Israel and the Palestinians are equally responsible for the failure to achieve peace; a speech in which Vice President Biden urges Israel to end settlements and back a "two-state solution;" and a January 9, 2009 statement warning Israel of the consequences of misusing U.S-supplied weapons. Rather than telling the truth about the central role of Islamist radicalism in sabotaging peace, the State Department seems to waiver between moral equivalence and blaming Israel.

In short, the State Department continues to send foolish — even dangerous — messages to both friends and enemies of freedom in the Muslim world.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, May 18, 2009.

Salt formations along the shoreline of the Dead Sea


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

Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT:

The Dead Sea is without a doubt one of the strangest places on Earth. Vast and lifeless, its mineral-rich waters offer, paradoxically, life-giving therapy to a variety of human ailments. From a distance, one might imagine he is looking at the Arctic Sea, as iceberg-like salt domes dot the shoreline. And much like ice, they crunch underfoot and change form with time and the action of the water.

Walking along the shore one early morning last week, I let my camera hang from my shoulder as I admired the aquamarine colors of the water and an occasional bizarre, salt-encrusted chair or other man-made object, and luxuriated in the cleansing silence. This particular morning, a slight breeze wafted across the water, disturbing the absolute stillness which often creates beautiful symmetry between the odd salt formations and their perfect reflections. As a result, I chose a shot which plays on the relationship between the sky and land. The two sections of cloud are roughly mirrored by the pool and the salt accumulation that make up the photo's foreground.

A seascape is entirely flat, so it's difficult to gain an interesting perspective without elevation. I did manage to position my tripod on a salt dome, raising the camera over my head, first calculating the exposure and then composing and focusing without looking through the viewfinder. A few minor corrections and I had the shot I wanted. I hadn't been to the Dead Sea in quite some time and this visit restored my appreciation for this desert jewel and inspired me to return again to the lowest place on earth to record some of the highest natural beauty Israel has to offer.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 18, 2009.


The Iran news agency made the following points reported in (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/21), each point followed by my rebuttal.

1. The Holocaust was the chief pretext for Theodore Herzl to justify Zionism.

Mr. Herzl died in 1904, decades before the Nazis started the Holocaust. He could not have made a later event the basis for his claim. Iran's account ignores the reasons he and the religious Zionists gave.

2. Palestine had been in possession of the Arabs for more than 4,000 years after the reign of King David

King David lived about 962 BCE. When he consolidated the Jewish kingdom, Judea, Arabs were not there. That is less than 3,000 years ago, not more than 4,000.

In addition, the Arabs started their conquests less than 1,400 years ago. That is still less than 4,000 years.

Furthermore, Turks replaced Arabs as rulers of Judea within a couple of hundred years. Therefore, the Arabs ruled Palestine for only a couple of hundred years.

3. The Zionists fabricated extensive research to verify the non-existent Holocaust. The myth enabled Jews to get billions of dollars in reparations and restitution from Germany.

How could outside propaganda convince contemporary Germans that they had murdered millions, if they hadn't? They would not pay for nothing. Actually, the SS left detailed records of their extermination of Jews. Most of the records were retrieved right after the war, leaving no time for a gigantic fabrication industry to make up records. Upon liberating some of the death camps, the US Army witnessed some of the results.

(4) Israel shows official visitors its Holocaust memorial just for sympathy, and some European countries ban Holocaust denial so the fraud won't be exposed.

Israel wants the martyred Jewish millions not to have died in vain and un-mourned, lest countries such as Iran, which threaten to commit a holocaust, do so, because the world hasn't learned from the first Holocaust or doesn't care.

I don't approve of banning Holocaust denial. I do understand the ban. After WWII, people wondered how to prevent a Nazi movement from arising again. Some thought the answer is to ban Nazi movements and propaganda and Holocaust denial. It's a reasonable argument.

(5) Zionism displaced millions of Palestinian Arabs from their homeland.

The Arab population of what became Israel was estimated by the British rulers as 561,000. About 140,000 did not flee. That leaves 421,000 displaced (Battleground by Samuel Katz, 1982, pub. by Steimatzky Shapolsky.)

The refugees weren't displaced by Zionism. They and their foreign Arab allies started a war to displace the Zionists in 1947, lost it, and fled.

Nor should Israel be considered the homeland of most of them. Most of their families had been recent immigrants from surrounding Arab countries.

Let's turn Iran's claim on its head. Radical Islam denies the Holocaust in order to deny sympathy for its Jewish victims, so as to facilitate dismembering their state.


The Iran news agency made the following points reported in (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/21), each point followed by my rebuttal.

1. The Holocaust was the chief pretext for Theodore Herzl to justify Zionism.

Mr. Herzl died in 1904, decades before the Nazis started the Holocaust. He could not have made a later event the basis for his claim. Iran's account ignores the reasons he and the religious Zionists gave.

2. Palestine had been in possession of the Arabs for more than 4,000 years after the reign of King David

King David lived about 962 BCE. When he consolidated the Jewish kingdom, Judea, Arabs were not there. That is less than 3,000 years ago, not more than 4,000.

In addition, the Arabs started their conquests less than 1,400 years ago. That is still less than 4,000 years.

Furthermore, Turks replaced Arabs as rulers of Judea within a couple of hundred years. Therefore, the Arabs ruled Palestine for only a couple of hundred years.

3. The Zionists fabricated extensive research to verify the non-existent Holocaust. The myth enabled Jews to get billions of dollars in reparations and restitution from Germany.

How could outside propaganda convince contemporary Germans that they had murdered millions, if they hadn't? They would not pay for nothing. Actually, the SS left detailed records of their extermination of Jews. Most of the records were retrieved right after the war, leaving no time for a gigantic fabrication industry to make up records. Upon liberating some of the death camps, the US Army witnessed some of the results.

(4) Israel shows official visitors its Holocaust memorial just for sympathy, and some European countries ban Holocaust denial so the fraud won't be exposed.

Israel wants the martyred Jewish millions not to have died in vain and un-mourned, lest countries such as Iran, which threaten to commit a holocaust, do so, because the world hasn't learned from the first Holocaust or doesn't care.

I don't approve of banning Holocaust denial. I do understand the ban. After WWII, people wondered how to prevent a Nazi movement from arising again. Some thought the answer is to ban Nazi movements and propaganda and Holocaust denial. It's a reasonable argument.

(5) Zionism displaced millions of Palestinian Arabs from their homeland.

The Arab population of what became Israel was estimated by the British rulers as 561,000. About 140,000 did not flee. That leaves 421,000 displaced (Battleground by Samuel Katz, 1982, pub. by Steimatzky Shapolsky.)

The refugees weren't displaced by Zionism. They and their foreign Arab allies started a war to displace the Zionists in 1947, lost it, and fled.

Nor should Israel be considered the homeland of most of them. Most of their families had been recent immigrants from surrounding Arab countries.

Let's turn Iran's claim on its head. Radical Islam denies the Holocaust in order to deny sympathy for its Jewish victims, so as to facilitate dismembering their state.


The NY Times' May 12 editorial urged the US to press Israel for territorial and security concessions to the Palestinian Authority. It did not urge the US to press the Palestinian Authority to cease its advocacy of bigotry and of conquering Israel and to crack down on terrorism.

On May 14, four letters to the editor commented, two yea and two nay. None, however, noted the editorial's one-sidedness nor that such one-sidedness is typical of that newspaper.

The basic argument for US pressure upon Israel is that the governments both of the US and of Israel promote their own national interest. The writers failed to identify the US interest. I think they assume that the interest is peace, and Israeli concessions would promote peace, because the Arabs say they would.

Assumption and argument do not describe the real world. Actually, the Arab Muslim code considers it honorable to deceive infidels, the better to dominate them. In fulfilling that code, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hizbullah, and even Arab states, broke their peace agreements with Israel. Just because they say certain concessions would bring peace does not mean they would.

In fact, those concessions would bring war. Why? Because the Arab Muslims have not reformed their religious imperialist code of deceit and of the imperative to conquer infidels. The concessions that they demand — detaching Old Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria, the core and the soul of Zionism, removing Israel's secure borders, getting control over much of Israel's water supply, and flooding Israel with hostile Arabs — would make that conquest easy.

Such conquest would remove from the US a competent allied army of hundreds of thousands, and would enable Radical Islam to consolidate its hold over the Mideast, uniting it against the US. That is not in the American interest! Solidarity with Israel is in the American interest. Then there might be peace.

Why is the US pursuing that scenario? Because the State Dept. does not act that much in the American interest. How so? (1) It has a traditional anti-Zionist bias (and our President is egotistical about his ability to persuade fanatics to mellow). The State Dept. puts its bias before the American interest. (2) The US government would have to know what that interest is. Our State Dept. keeps blundering and our CIA spies like a blind man.

Rulers of Israel may have anti-Zionist ideologies, too. Corrupt ones may feel obliged to assist the Attorney-General's anti-Zionist ideology. Some Prime Ministers succumb under pressure to US demands. Can't count on their acting in behalf of their national interest. Politicians can be too clever for their own good.

For an example of how the Obama has pressed the fabled Israel lobby into promoting what he wants, see:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d14-Obama-herds-Jews-into-antiIsrael-coalition


Pope Benedict XVI identified with "all the homeless Palestinians who long to be able to return to their birthplace, or live permanently in a homeland of their own."

"...after decades of suffering, they had a right to a sovereign homeland 'in the land of your forefathers, secure and at peace with its neighbors, within internationally recognized borders.'"

The Pope "sought to express sympathy with victims on both sides of the intractable conflict." He urged youths to "have the courage to resist any temptation you may feel to resort to acts of violence or terrorism."

The NY Times report referred to Israel's security barrier as something that the Arabs loathe "but which Israel says is key to its security..."

Several Palestinian Authority officials referred to the war for Israeli independence as a "catastrophe" for them.

Some Israeli officials considered the Pope's remarks one-sided. The Pope's visit to the Holy Land led to questions about his wartime years in the Hitler Youth and German Army.

The article ended by observing that the proportion of Christians in the Holy Land, where their faith originated, has declined sharply in recent years, from about 20% to 2%, and in the Mideast as a whole, to about 5% (Rachel Donadia & Sharon Otterman, 5/14, A12).

I think that criticism of the Pope for his wartime membership is unfair and simplistic. Forced membership in a totalitarian state does not indicate concord with it. There is no record of wrongful acts or leadership by him in those roles.

By contrast, a former Secretary-General of the UN, Kurt Waldheim, had been an officer in the German Army, helping to direct extermination of Jews in the Balkans. He was a war criminal. That was fair to object to.

It is not my place to put anything into this column about what the Vicar of Christ and the Holy Father to a billion Catholics hands down about religion. On the other hand, when he speaks as ruler of a country or on political matters, and proposes policies that I foresee leading to the slaughter of millions, I find him misled.

Consider his sympathy for the Palestinian Arabs he visited as victims of war, wanting to return to their "birthplace" from outside a sovereign homeland.

This is 60 years after that war. For the great majority of the people addressed, Israel is not their place of birth! As for the others, it was not the homeland of many. Most were of recent immigrant stock. They had no notion of homeland, just of village and religion, later feeling they were southern Syrians, but only recently taking up a nationalist position for propaganda.

They don't want to get into Israel for peace, but for conquest. Nor would that conquest bring peace over the bodies of dead Jews. The Radical Muslim leaders want to further the international jihad taking place, including the conquest of Europe, in which the Vatican sits like a ripe plum.

Somebody should inform the Pope that there is a sovereign Arab state comprising most of Palestine, called Jordan.

The Arabs whom the Pope treated as victims, really were among the victimizers. They started a civil war in 1947, instead of a new state. The stated goal was to murder the Jews. Not having a state is their own fault!

They soon were supported by invading Arab armies. Most of the Arabs in the new state of Israel fled at the command of those armies. The command was, get out of our way, then return in a couple of weeks and loot to your heart's content.

Their attempted genocide fell short. They killed only 60,000 Jews. Why does the Pope sympathize with people who attempted genocide?

Notice the cute, seemingly neutral way that the reporters describe the security barrier. They write that the Arabs loath it but Israel says it is needed for security. Is it needed for security? If the Arabs left, it would not be needed. However, where erected, terrorism fell greatly. The utility of the fence was demonstrated, not a matter of opinion. The purpose of the fence, however, is mixed, because the government uses it to fence out a number of Jews, in anticipation of giving up territory.

The Times gave the same figures about the declining proportion of Christians, without proper explanation. The paper does not make it clear from what era it traces the decline. Actually, before the Muslim conquest, the proportion of Christians in the Mideastern provinces of Rome was much higher. The Muslims have been squeezing the Christians out of the region for centuries. The Muslim bigotry, murder, rape, robbery, forced conversion, and lesser rights should be a major human rights issue. On that, the Pope failed to speak out.

For more on the Pope's visit:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d13-Distorting-Popes-visit-to-Israel


While Geneva hosted the predictable Durban II conference, the Hudson Institute in New York hosted an unconventional panel on April 23, comprising an eminent group of Muslim scholars from Egypt, Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany. All disparaged the Durban II Conference for ignoring "...one of the leading sources of intolerance in the world today — namely, bigotry and xenophobia in the name of religion itself and Islam in particular." [Caution: they are saying this bigotry is in the name of Islam, they are not saying it is Islamic.]

"The conference reaffirms the perception that Islam has been hijacked by a dominant minority of thugs, extremists and anti-Semites who claim that they are speaking on behalf of a majority of Muslims. 'Ahmadinejad and his likes should be the last to talk about racism, human rights and tolerance' said Khaled Abu Toameh, an Israeli-Arab journalist and filmmaker."

"Zeyno Baran, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, remarked, 'It is time the silent majority of Muslims speaks up in defense of universal human rights for all, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion or gender.'"

"'Durban II,' pointed out Dr. Irfan al-Alawi, executive director of the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation UK, 'has been discredited by hate speech, efforts to deny freedom of expression and attempts to limit the reach of anti-racism treaty obligations. The ploy has undermined, rather than supported, diversity in religion and culture. The United Nations has repeatedly failed to protect human rights and, ironically, Durban II uses alleged human rights principles to continue that inauspicious record.' Al-Alawi, noted that the attempt to limit free speech by invoking Islam was illegitimate. "Islam benefits from debate and criticism. Islam needs free speech and Islam is strong enough to withstand negative speech'."

"Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, executive director of the Center of Islamic Pluralism, added that 'All religion and spirituality originates with criticism and freedom of speech. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all began with a criticism of earlier, idolatrous religion, and no religion can flourish without freedom of opinion.'"

"The Hudson Institute is a non-partisan policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom." (Hudson Inst., 4/23.)

"The Hudson Institute challenges conventional thinking and helps manage strategic transitions to the future through interdisciplinary and collaborative studies in defense, international relations, economics, culture, science, technology, and law. Through publications, conferences and policy recommendations, we seek to guide global leaders in government and business."

"Since our founding in 1961 by the futurist Herman Kahn, Hudson's perspective has been uniquely future-oriented and optimistic." The Institute has headquarters in Washington, CE, but maintains an office in New York City (www.hudson.org).

My comment: bolstering reformist Muslim voices may be the way to avoid the clash of civilizations. The federal government should include this approach in its strategy, if it has one. UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL MAKEUP & COST The UN Human Rights Council, composed of such human rights violators as Belarus, China, Cuba, N. Korea and Zimbabwe, had the responsibility for planning Durban II. The Council elected twenty countries to help prepare for the conference. Libya is chairman and Iran, vice-chairman of the committee, with Cuba, Pakistan, Russia and South Africa included amongst the nineteen vice-chairmen. April 20, the day that Durban II opened in Geneva for a week of hate-filled, anti-Israel, anti-American vitriol, fittingly happens to be Hitler's birthday. It's an appropriate time for the violators of human rights throughout the world to gather together under the auspices of the UN Human Rights Council, to confirm the virulently anti-Israel resolutions of Durban I, created in 2001 in Durban, South Africa. Unbeknownst to most of America's taxpayers, they will pay 22% of the cost of this hate fest (from an open letter by Helen Freedman). U.S. annual dues to the UN are 22% of the official UN budget. Is it worth it?


AWRAD polled 600 Palestinian Arabs for OneVoice Israel and OneVoice Palestine following the elections in Israel in February 2009. It confirms prior polls. What they want would leave Israel non-viable.

By these percentages, they found the following "essential":
59% Historic Palestine — From the Jordanian river to the sea as an Islamic Waqf [that would leave no Israel.
71% Historic Palestine — From the Jordanian river to the sea
87% Right of return and compensation [would end Jewish sovereignty in Israel]
96% Palestinians should have control of their energy, minerals and air space
91% All of Jerusalem should remain in the new Arab state
92% East Jerusalem, including Jewish Holy sites, under Arab sovereignty

By these percentages, they found the following "unacceptable":
75% The number of refugees returning to Israel should be limited to family members and numbers agreed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority
91% The new Arab state should not have an army
62% For security during an agreed period, Israel will have observation posts in the new Arab state
76% Jewish parts of the Old City should be under Israeli control
78% If everything is agreed except for Jerusalem, proceed with the agreement (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/23). An agreement that is not conclusive would give them a pretext for renewed war.


A friend relayed to me several widely held points that I think do unfair damage, so here they are with my retort:


1. I can't be objective on Israel, because I'm Jewish and have ties with Israelis

So ethnicity disqualifies most Jews from reporting on Israel and qualifies gentiles? Be careful, that notion, itself, approaches being prejudiced. Ties to Israelis? Many gentiles have them. Does that disqualify them? On the other hand, many gentiles have held anti-Jewish prejudices, over the centuries. I think the answer depends on the individual's integrity, ideology, and knowledge.

"Objective" means that one's view is fact-based rather than prejudiced. I think I qualify. I seek knowledge and pursue the facts. My ideology and reason serve to make sense of the facts. My integrity rejects invalid arguments that favor my inclinations. My writing attempts to explain what the major media ignore and to correct misimpressions they foster.


2. The pro-Israeli view drowns out other views on TV and in major newspapers

What is a pro-Israeli view? We Jews know that there are more than two sides to many stories — we are notorious for having several, ourselves. The Establishment view purports to be pro-Israel, but I dispute that it is. Embracing appeasement of the Arab Muslims, it is based on ignorance of jihad and human nature.

My ideology is Zionist: claiming the homeland, opposing jihad, and knowing enough about human nature to distrust agreements made with fanatics who believe in breaking agreements with infidels. Experience has vindicated this outlook.

This Jewish national view rarely appears on TV and in major newspapers. Instead, we mostly hear Arab claims and non-Arab exhortation to accede to many of them.


3. Newcomer Jews replaced and rule over indigenous Arabs in Israel, like the Europeans did to the American Indians.

The aboriginal inhabitants of the Land of Israel still extant are the Jews, some of whom never left the homeland. When the Arabs invaded it, Jews comprised a major segment of the population. As Muslim rule turned oppressive, it squeezed the Jews out, just as the Muslims have been squeezing out the former Christian majority of the Mideast.

Muslim rule, mostly Turkish, ruined the area and mostly depopulated it. The Turkish Sultans repeatedly restocked the area with Muslims from the Caucasus. The idea was to fill the empty space.

When modern Zionism launched a return to the homeland, soon recognized by the Balfour Declaration and in the Palestine Mandate as rectifying the historic injustice of dispossession of most native Jews, the country was called "empty." That's a figurative term signifying that the population has shrunk to insignificance and still was dwindling.

How did the Zionists acquire land? By paying top dollar! Didn't kill the Arabs off or pen them onto Indian reservations, to seize their land. In fact, The Zionists also paid of Arab tenant farmers, too.

With help from the Mandatory government, the Zionists drained the swamps, cleared the low jungle, and developed agriculture and other industry. To share in the economic growth, Arabs immigrated in large numbers. About three-fourths of the Arab families there now are of relatively recent immigrant families. From the 1920s, they organized terrorism to consolidate their hegemony over their own people and to drive out the Jews.

By pogrom condoned by the British Mandatory authorities, Arabs expelled the Jews from Hebron. By invasion led by British officers, Arabs expelled the Jews from the Old City of Jerusalem. Now that Israel won jurisdiction over both areas, in self-defense against still more aggression, and Jews try to recover their family's land, the Israeli government blocks their efforts. Hence I find the Establishment appeasement-minded, unfair, anti-Zionist, and not pro-Israel.

By contrast, the Zionists tried to live in peace with the Muslims. Despite a Palestinian Arab attempt at genocide, in the 1940s, the new state of Israel urged the Arabs to stay. Most fled, some stayed, and only a few, from the most warlike villages in strategic hills and border zones, were expelled.

The analogy with American Indians does not fit. Israel is in the front lines of an international jihad against civilization, itself, including the many Muslim victims of the Radical Muslims. An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! An Excellent Credit Score is 750. An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after instant savings! Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after instant savings!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Molly, May 18, 2009.

We say "no" to a new state for the so-called "palestinians" if the Arabs want to plant it in or anywhere near Israel.

We say plant it in the heart of the Arabian Peninsula, or next to Yemen. In other words, "yes" OK arabs, you can have your new state just so long as it's planted away from Israel and on the Arabian Peninsula.

It would be so lovely to see what the Saudis would do if it should happen to be widely reported that the Saudis have magnanimously offered a chunk of the Arabian Peninsula to the itinerant arabs whom Peres calls "Palestinians" (Being Polish, and wishing to be known as still Euroid at heart, the old geezer never quite grasped that "Palestine" always and invariably referred to the Jewish Homeland.)

Voluminous praise of the Saudi magnanimity should follow in the media, coupled to expressions of thanks and gratitude and joy — reported here, there, and everywhere and the Saudi "royals" should be given high praise for their sagacious resolution to the "Palestine Problem". (Protests and disavowals will must assuredly come flying ... ignore them. Simply repeat the report: Gush about Saudi magnanimity and this time delineate on map where Saudis will establish the "new state." Next, produce reports of arabs flocking to the region for their new state and their hasty abandonment of the Gaza region and the West Bank. Media reports will follow that the Gaza Strip will become the New Homeland for the Old Jews (Old Palestine) and the West Bank to be the homeland for the secular Jews (or vice versa) and all three regions of Israel will be henceforth known as the United States of Israel ... and all three states will apply for membership in the UN.

Who knows where something like this will lead? It's certainly an improvement over Peres' perpetual face-licking while bleaping about piecing away Israel and giving it to his arab darlings.

Viva Israel.

We are the NON-evangelical — that is, secular — Christians for Zion:


Contact Molly at pelago2000@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 18, 2009.

The meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama is over. The two leaders first met privately, with their discussions going beyond scheduled time. They were then joined by advisors — Netanyahu by top aide Ron Dermer and National Security Advisor Uzi Arad. Obama by US National Security Advisor James Jones.

Much has been made of the need for positive personal chemistry to be established between the two, as the human relationship is said to be important in greasing the wheels of diplomacy. (As press here has put it, inexplicably to me, trust has to be established. ) I don't know to what degree the chemistry was positive — and undoubtedly more will follow on this.

At a press conference after the meeting, the two declared that they would work together to meet the challenges of the Middle East, including Iran. But what is clear is that there was no meeting of the minds.

Obama reiterated his two previously stated positions: That the dialogue with Iran should have no artificial time limit put on it and will be open-ended, although he would like to see progress by the end of the year and will consider other options such as sanctions in due course if necessary (no mention of a military option). And that his goal is two states living side by side in peace, which he hopes to achieve before the end of his term.

Netanyahu, for his part, repeated his previous position: that he would like to see the Palestinians govern themselves. But he has in mind some sort of autonomy, less than a full state. He referred to economic development and other assistance for the Palestinian Authority, but — Baruch Hashem! — he did not speak either of a Palestinian state or a two-state solution.

His emphasis, we were told before the meeting, was to be on Iran and the need for strong action. As would be expected, whatever was determined in terms of US sanction of/or refusal to sanction Israeli military action against Iran is not being shared. Interestingly, Netanyahu seemed to turn the Obama claim about the need to solve the Palestinian conflict first on its head, saying that more Arab nations need to get involved because of the instability generated by Iran.

Undoubtedly more news — major analysis — on the meeting will be forthcoming in the days ahead.


There's a tough time ahead for us (see below), whatever may have been said in private or established today in terms of personal relationship between the two leaders. And, just as I suggested that we ask Netanyahu to stay strong before his meeting with Obama, I would like to suggest that now we applaud his strength, let him know we're behind him, and ask him to retain his resolve.

Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-2-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore between pm and eng)


UN-related issues that require our attention:

Anne Bayefsky, of Eye on the UN, has written a piece called "Obama's UN Mistake," in which she describes the move Obama has made to further empower the UN.
http://article.nationalreview.com:80/?q= MmE3ZmUwZDY0ZmFiMzllYTJiY2UwOTllNjBjYTY2MGQ=

The Security Council, Bayefsky tells us, just a little over a week ago, adopted what is called a "presidential statement." This one says:

"The Security Council supports the proposal of the Russian Federation to convene, in consultation with the Quartet and the parties, an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow in 2009."

This statement, while it has no legal status, does require a unanimous vote. This means Obama could have vetoed it, but chose not to.

You'll note that the statement alludes to consultation with "the parties." Israel has been working to convince Russia not to hold such a conference this year — and our government is not pleased. Bayefsky sees the 22 nations of the Arab League as being among "the parties" — which squeezes Israel badly.

Israeli UN ambassador Gabriella Shalev issued a statement putting forth Israel's position:

"Israel does not believe that the involvement of the Security Council contributes to the political process in the Middle East. This process should be bilateral and left to the parties themselves."

What is more, Shalev expressed dissatisfaction with the timing of this, when she had shared with the Security Council the fact that Netanyahu, in preparation for his meeting with Obama, was working on his approach to dealing with the Palestinians.


The American UN ambassador, Susan Rice, took a very different approach, when she announced to the Security Council that "we intend to integrate the Arab Peace Initiative into our own approach." To reporters she said:

"We welcome Foreign Minister Lavrov's initiative to convene the Council, and we're very pleased with the constructive and comprehensive statement that will be issued by the president of the Council on the Council's behalf. This was a product of really collaborative, good-faith efforts by all members of the Council, and we're pleased with the outcome."

And worst of all: "The United States cannot be left to do all the heavy lifting by itself, and other countries... must do all that they can to shore up our common efforts."

This positively screams a warning. Obama has set up a situation in which he doesn't have to put the screws to Netanyahu himself, he can get the international community to help.

Bayefsky believes Obama has set this up as a "good-cop/bad cop" routine, so that he can rescue Israel, for a price. It's possible. It's also possible that he hopes he won't have as much to answer for with his pro-Israel constituents, if the UN is doing the dirty work.


And we're not done.

This past week the US formally joined the UN Human Rights Council. This anti-democratic group is virulently anti-Israel. It has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than condemning all of the 191 other UN members combined; has held ten regular sessions on human rights, and five special sessions to condemn only Israel; and has insisted on an investigator with an open-ended mandate to condemn Israel, while all other investigators must be regularly renewed.

What is more, the US, along with the four other Western nations sitting on the Council, can expect to be outvoted by nations from other geographic areas, including Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Djibouti, Bahrain, Qatar, Russia, and China. Actually, the balance of power lies with the Organization of the Islamic States, which has members on the Council from both the African and Asian groupings.

This means the influence the US can have on Council decisions is minimal if not non-existent.

Great situation, is it not?


In the course of the research I'm doing on UNRWA, I came across the following information, which I believe it is valuable to share. It provides a more accurate perspective in the face of the "awfulizing" that is routinely done regarding the situation of the Arabs in Gaza. This comes from an article by Justus Weiner, an international lawyer with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

"...Gaza's offshore gas deposits are worth an estimated $4 billion. This natural resource could be accessed to improve the lives of residents of Gaza once the anarchy and violence of Hamas is curtailed. Second, the population of Gaza is comparatively healthy and well educated. Life expectancy in the Gaza Strip is more than 72 years, which is higher than in Russia, the Bahamas, India, Ukraine and Glasgow East (Scotland).

"Third, Gaza has a much lower infant mortality rate than Angola, Iran, India, Egypt and Brazil...

"Likewise, despite the ceaseless repetition by journalists that 'the Gaza Strip is the most densely populated place on Earth,' it is in fact markedly less densely populated than an array of other locales, including a number of economic success stories such as Monaco, Hong Kong, Singapore and Gibraltar."

Surprised? Save this and refer to it as necessary.


According to Fox News, American intelligence sources are saying that a secret commando unit under the Joint Special Operations Command is prepared to infiltrate Pakistan and secure its mobile arsenal of nuclear weaponry if it appears that the country is about to fall to the Taliban or Al Qaida. This is significant because Islamic forces have taken territory not far from Islamabad, Pakistan's capital.

This is good news. It indicates a readiness to deal with an emergency realistically, and not with pie-in-the-sky approaches.


MK Alex Miller (Yisrael Beiteinu) has submitted a bill that would make it illegal to celebrate the Nakba, which means "catastrophe" in Arabic, and is how the Arabs refer to the founding of Israel.

It is unlikely to pass, as it infringes on freedom of speech and right of protest. But none-the-less, this highlights a serious problem in this country. As Miller put it in a statement to the Post:

From my perspective, it very much harms me, as a citizen, when citizens... mourn the establishment of the State of Israel when they themselves have equal rights in this country.

"If we really want to achieve coexistence, the time has come that we stop this absurd theater."


A new settlement is scheduled to be built in the Jordan Valley, for the first time in 26 years. To be called Maskiot, it will be established on the ruins of a settlement abandoned years ago.

At the same time we are seeing this: Four years ago, as part of the expulsion from Gush Katif, there were four communities in northern Samaria that were demolished as well. One of those was Homesh.

Last week, in a demonstration approved by the IDF, 1,500 people returned to the site of Homesh; they are working towards the re-building of the community.

Those rallying carried letters of support from members of the current government written for the event:

"I want to bless the participants and support them in the realization of the Zionist way," wrote Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon (Likud).

Minister of Information and Diaspora Yuli Edelstein (Likud), said, "I have the utmost respect for the (former) Homesh settlers and all those who work to resettle the community as part of the settlement enterprise in the Land of Israel."

Fantastic! This brings hope.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, May 18, 2009.

From ghoulies and ghosties
And long-legged beasties,
things that go bump in the night,
And people with Middle East peace plans
Plus those with degrees in Conflict Management
Good Lord, deliver us!

— Middle East update of old Cornish prayer

Putting your hard-earned political capital into the peace process industry is like investing with Bernie Madoff. It may look like a good prospect on the surface but any serious examination shows it's a highway to bankruptcy. Of course, as with Madoff, many choose not to look too closely.

Among them is U.S. National Security Advisor James Jones who says:

"There are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat by working hard towards achieving a two-state solution."
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090510/usa/ mideast_us_israel_iran_diplomacy_nuclear_weapons_1

Yes it would be better to have peace, no question. But would that diminish the existential threat given the existing realities?

Let's look at the list:

We intend to destroy Israel and we are against peace, says Iran. If Israel makes concessions, we will use them as a more effective means to wipe it off the map. And we will also take revenge on anyone who makes peace with Israel.

We intend to destroy Israel and we are against peace, says Syria, even though it will pretend otherwise to fool the gullible. If Israel makes concessions, we will use them as a more effective means to wipe it off the map. And we will also take revenge on anyone who makes peace with Israel.

We intend to destroy Israel and we are against peace, says Hamas. If Israel makes concessions, we will use them as a more effective means to wipe it off the map. And we will also take revenge on anyone who makes peace with Israel.

We intend to destroy Israel and we are against peace, says Hizballah. If Israel makes concessions, we will use them as a more effective means to wipe it off the map. And we will also take revenge on anyone who makes peace with Israel.

We intend to destroy Israel and we are against peace, says al-Qaida. If Israel makes concessions, we will use them as a more effective means to wipe it off the map. And we will also take revenge on anyone who makes peace with Israel.

We intend to destroy Israel and we are against peace, says the Muslim Brotherhoods. If Israel makes concessions, we will use them as a more effective means to wipe it off the map. And we will also take revenge on anyone who makes peace with Israel.

We intend to destroy Israel and we are against peace, says Sudan, Libya, and assorted others. If Israel makes concessions, we will use them as a more effective means to wipe it off the map. And we will also take revenge on anyone who makes peace with Israel.

So far, it doesn't look like making peace will diminish that existential threat. Nor does it mean that a "two-state solution" will end the conflict either.

We'd like to make peace with Israel but if we do Iran, Syria, Hizballah, and some of our followers will kill us, say the Lebanese moderates. And any way we'll probably be out of power soon. We don't dare do anything.

We're really eager to make peace with Israel, says the Palestinian Authority. It just doesn't want to make peace with us. Our regime is too weak to make peace and any way much of the leadership is pretty hardline. The difference between Fatah and Hamas is not so much one of moderation versus radicalism (yes, there are differences on that point also) but rather whether Palestine will be nationalist or Islamist.

Of course, our idea of peace is not only the 1967 borders but also we won't end the conflict. In addition, we demand that any Palestinian who lived in what's now Israel before 1948 or has any ancestor who did can go live in Israel. What follows is:

Step 1: Massive internal violence.

Step 2: They either vote Israel out of existence and make it a binational state or destroy it from within in partnership with attackers from outside. This means either way we end up with:

Step 3: A one-state solution of Palestine, an Arab and Muslim state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

In other words, peace on the Palestinian Authority's terms or on those of Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, or the Muslim Brotherhood is an even bigger existential threat to Israel than Iran having nuclear weapons.

Iran might not use its nuclear weapons on Israel. But Iran and these other forces will use every weapon they have.

It shouldn't be that way, but it is. If you don't understand that, not big deal but please don't become a foreign policymaker, diplomat, journalist covering international affairs, think tank analyst, or have anything to do with the Middle East in political terms. Also don't get a degree in "conflict management," but that's a given.

If you want to understand what it is like to be Israel and hear people talk like this, imagine a pedestrian trying to cross a street facing dozens of people in big cars who think that it makes real good sense to drink about three bottles of bourbon before getting behind the wheel.

But, you might ask, don't Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, along with some other Arab states want peace? Yes they do but:

A. They don't pose existential threats.
B. They don't want to do much to make a comprehensive peace because:

— Having Israel as an enemy makes for good propaganda.

— Making peace with Israel or at least implementing that peace more fully exposes them to great risks from radical regimes and movements, at home and abroad.

— They don't need peace with Israel.

— They can just sit back and demand that the West do all the work and Israel makes all the concessions.

Finally, what is most amazing is that when I and other people explain these facts of Middle East life to people over and over again, they look rather startled as if they have never heard any of this before. They provide no serious rebuttals. And the next day they are back to the same mischief, having learned nothing and remembered even less.

There's no way better to put it than the great line from F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby:

"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made"

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go tohttp://www.gloria-center.org

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome Gordon, May 18, 2009.

Hundreds from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Balitmore and the greater Washington area are gathering in Lafayette Park across from the White House, today, to Rally in Support of Israel, The Rally, sponsored by AMCHA,

It will be held while Israeli PM Netanyahu Meets with President Obama in the White House Oval Office. Netanyahu's schedule for today includes his 90 minute meeting with Obama starting at 10:30AM. Following lunch, he will be meeting with Madame Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and NSC chief, Gen. James Jones. Separately, he will be meeting with key Congressional leaders. Netanyahu will focus on the Iran Nuclear Threat, while Obama will endeavor to link that to progress in a possible Middle East peace process.

A brief press conference could be held before lunch at the White House West Portico, assuming there are no major differences betwwen Obama and Bibi at this first meeting.

Meir Holtzberg, brother of slain Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg of the Mumbai Chabad House, who was murdered along with his wife Rivka in November 2008, will address Americans from across the country.

The message is clear: The Jewish State of Israel will not surrender to terrorism and will not give up land that is rightfully hers!

Israel left Gaza for Peace...... Hamas responded with Qassams.

We ask President Obama: "Would you tolerate Qassams falling on DC?

Would you "make peace" with a partner who doesn't recognize your right to exist?

The answer to both of these questions is NO.

Supporters of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, will be out in numbers to remind President Obama not to pressure his strongest ally into concessions that would compromise the security of Israel.

Israel has a sovereign right to exist with secure borders and an undivided capital, Jerusalem. We stand across from the White House to make that message heard!

Contact Jerry Gordon at jerry_gordon38@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gil Ronen, May 18, 2009.

Two out of every five Arab citizens of Israel, or 40.5 percent, say that the Shoah, or Holocaust, never happened. This figure is up from 28 percent who denied the Holocaust in a similar survey three years ago.

Only 41 percent of the Arab citizens of Israel recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, down from 65.6 percent who did so in 2003. A mere 53.7 percent recognize Israel's right to exist as an independent state at all, compared with 81.1 percent in 2003.

The statistics appear in the annual "Jewish Arab Relations Meter" published by Prof. Sami Samocha of Haifa University. The full content of the survey will be released Monday. The survey encompasses numbering 700 Arab men and women, who are a representative sample of Israel's Arab population, including Bedouin and Druze.

According to Samocha, Holocaust denial is common, not just among the less educated Arabs. A full 37 percent of Arabs who possess an education level above high school deny that the Holocaust happened.

Fifty-six percent of Arabs think that the "Right of Return" of Arab "refugees" should not include an influx into Israel's pre-1967 territory, as opposed to 72.2 percent who thought so six years ago.

12.6 percent support armed struggle

41.4 percent said that they had participated in "protest actions" over the course of the last year, compared with 28.7 percent who said so in 2003. 12.6 percent support using "all means, including weapons" in the struggle to "improve their situation." This figure is up from 5.4 percent in 2003.

53.8 percent said that it is okay for Arab children to study in a Jewish school — down from 70.5 percent in 2003. 47.3 percent do not want a Jew as their neighbor — up from 27.2 percent six years ago.

Despite the statistics, Prof. Samocha claims that Arabs' positions have not undergone serious radicalization in the past three decades and that they seek equality and peace.

Gil Ronen is a writer for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com), where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Miki and Herb Sunshine, May 18, 2009.

These are excerpts on Intermarriage, Assimilation, And Alienation from an article written by Rabbi Meir Kahane in 1977.

It is distributed by Barbara Ginsberg, who writes: "Anyone reading this Rav Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles written by Rav Kahane and would like to be, please contact me at: barhow@netvision.net.il "

Previously e-mailed Rav Kahane writings are available at
http:/www.barbaraginsberg.blogspot.com Posting on Baruch Marzel's activities are at


Once there was a television program which centered on the theme of intermarriage. The heroes of the piece were named Bernie and Bridget. The American Jewish Establishment put great pressure on the network that televised the series and the program was ultimately dropped. Bernie and Bridget were no longer. They had been cancelled.

How relatively simple it was to cancel Bernie and Bridget on television and how much more difficult to struggle against the intermarriage and assimilation that exist in real American Jewish life.

What makes Bernie run? What makes him run after Bridget? What makes Bernie run away from Judaism and cut the chain of generations? What makes Bernie run away from the Judaism that his grandfather clutched, at the risk of loss of happiness of material wealth, and, often, of life? What makes Bernie run?

It is clear that the future bodes, only more intermarriage. Freedom and equality have brought the Jew the right to do everything that Bridget's father does, and to marry his daughter, too. Jews have broken out of the ghetto with a vengeance and mix with the Gentiles in every sphere. Witness the tremendous percentage of Jewish youth who attend college and university — the most powerful force for intermarriage possible. There the young Jew is at the mercy of a scholastic atmosphere which is unfavorable to religious and all "parochial" trends and which radicalizes him into questioning the importance of a heritage he knows about only on a Bar Mitzvah child's level. He meets Gentiles who are his peers and finds them remarkably similar (there are, he discovers, quite a number of bright Gentiles), and he shares a major part of his life with them for at least four years.

In a study prepared for the American Jewish congress by Capolvitz and Levy (Interreligious dating among college students, 1965) it was seen that:

The transition from high school to college represents for most young people a lessening of the influence of their family and an increase in the influence of their peers and professors who hold out to them a world of secular knowledge and liberalism. Religion and other traditional beliefs reinforced by the family of origin are apt to become weakened in the college setting.

What happens when a child is born free and unencumbered with memories? And what happens when a young Jew is raised in an environment where, for the time being, history has allowed him never to know any meaningful anti-Semitism? What happens when he roams campuses filled with (pretty and handsome) Gentiles, freedom-filled neighborhoods and workplaces, a world of his own that is apparently uninhabited by hatred of the Jew? What happens when a whole generation grows up that does not know the goy? What happiness? Why, the obvious. Not being forced to be a Jew he does not remain one; not consciously, not actively, not caring. What happens? "Death to Bernie as a Jew".

Now, Bernie, you know the tragedy, the bankruptcy of the false "Judaism" you were fed. You know it without having to open this book and read these pages. You lived it, and, I say with a sad heart, you have been twisted and crippled by it. You were robbed by all the good people who gave you everything in life except the most important things — truth, meaning, identity.

But never think that what you have seen is the real Judaism. Far from it. The Judaism that you never saw, and never were given to properly understand exists and awaits you. Stop for a moment and consider it. Forget about trying to escape from your people, your heritage, and your destiny. Forget all the nonsense that poses as "Judaism" — the mausoleums that pass for temples; the rabbis who preach salvation for all causes except the Jewish one; the people who created G-d in their own image, making Him emerge in the form of a UJA Israel Bond, Bar Mitzvah caterer and bagels and lox. Let me help you understand who you are, who your people are, what the times we live in mean for you for them, what the future holds for you, your people, and Israel. Forget the tragedy and consider the glory

What a pity that the vast majority of Jews do not understand who they are and why they are! What a pity that they have fallen victim to ignorance and to ignorant shepherds. What a pity that they understand neither the Chosenness of the Jew nor the sublime magnificence of the total Torah way of life. In their abysmal lack of knowledge and superficial gleanings they see and hear of commandments and rituals and find them inexplicable or ludicrous. Being told that the Sabbath forbids "work" they cannot grasp why switching on a light is forbidden. Having heard that kashrut is a hygienic thing, they cannot see why government-controlled and well-cooked pork is forbidden. They suffer from the problems of the three blind men who wished to know what an elephant was, with each one touching a different part. The one who touched the tail tusk "understood" that the elephant was a rope; the one who touched the tusk "learned" that an elephant was spear; and the one who touched the leg "realized" that the elephant was a pillar.

One cannot understand Torah and the true path of Judaism without seeing the entire purpose and architectural blueprint, without knowing what the structure is supposed to look like. For the commandments are but bricks in a structure and only when seeing the planned totality can one understand why each brick serves a logical purpose. There are Jews who never learned anything of their faith and others who learned a dangerous little. Both can never say: I do not believe in Judaism for one who has never learned it deeply, does not know what not to believe. One must study Judaism at the feet of those who believe and know it. Not for nothing did the rabbis say: "Great is study because [only] it leads to doing." Only the one who has studied Torah can understand it fully, and the ignorant one can never become G-d fearing. So let us learn together.

"The world and all within it were created only for the sake of Torah." Torah, the Jewish code of law, the life-style and life of the Jew. His map, his guide, his existence. The Jewish G-d of creation created the world for the sake of Torah, in order that its principles and truths might be translated into practice and life. And the Jewish people was chosen by G-d as the vehicle for living and teaching His Torah. That and that alone is the Jewish is the reason for creation.

And so it was that on a day unlike any other in the annals of this world an entire people stood at the foot of a burning mountain upon whose peak the L-rd had descended in a fire, "and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. And when the voice of the [shofar] horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and G-d answered" in a voice that shattered the atmosphere and thrust itself into the souls of the people who stood by, as it called out: "I am the L-rd thy G-d, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20).

Only by being set apart, only by being separated and different can the Jew learn how to be His, can the Jew avoid being dragged down by the environment and influences of a culture that degrades and desecrates, that profanes man and turns his life into the animal. Holiness can only be achieved by living a certain kind of life, and when that life is attacked and challenged and threatened by alien and contradictory forces every day and in every way — there can be no holiness, there can be no purpose to Chosenness.

How do we know that a man should not say I cannot abide pork. but should rather say: I can eat the pork but what can I do if my father in Heaven has decreed otherwise? It is said: "And I have separated you from the nations that you should be Mine," that you should be separated from them for My name's sake and accept the yoke of heaven.

The Jew became a nation, but more — much more. He became a religio-nation. At the moment of Revelation he was also commanded a Torah — the Divinely created and revealed laws that where to be his "life and length of his days." It was a treaty, a covenant between Israel and its Maker. The Jew from that moment the chosen one. He was sanctified; hallowed, and set apart from all the nations.

Study; learn Torah, for only Torah and Torah knowledge can make you the kind of Jew you must be.

Young Jew, Baruch, [Hebrew for Bernie] who I have never met, come home. Return to your people and destiny. It is beautiful You are young and for you return is simple. And you know that you life can be lived in only one place. Home. The Land of Israel.

Herb Sunshine is a lawyer, qualified to practice in U.S.A. and Israel. He and his wife Miki live in Jerusalem. Contact them by email at sunshine.h@012.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 17, 2009.


Americans disapprove of torture more than of wars of self-defense, though wars maim more people than does torture. Why this sentiment?

Torture is more intimate. People can imagine themselves in a captive's shoes. They shudder at the image of it in their minds.

The power to torture is corrupting. [I think the author means that it tempts captors to resort to it unnecessarily.]

People also object to it as impractical. They think that it provides scanty or false intelligence. It fails to counteract the ideology of Radical Islam, which produces terrorists. By raising indignation against us, it helps terrorists recruit (Scott Shane, NY Times, 4/19, Wk1).

The Bush administration wrote instructions for what harsh methods are legal up to what point. They set that point quite far out. Their effort seemed more a rationalization than an honest attempt to set reasonable standards. They were trying to see how much they could get away with. They abused prisoners.

Combine that effort to see how much they could get away with, with the Administration's great secrecy about its standards! Add into the mixture the Administration's holding prisoners without habeas corpus and its excessive spying on people. That is, the Administration turned out mistakenly to have incarcerated innocent people for months, without having given those people an opportunity to explain to a judicial body why their captivity was a mistake. The Administration secretly exceeded its legal powers to eavesdrop on people. Seen as a whole, a more serious picture presents itself (NY Times, 4/19, Ed.).

As a whole, the government was getting inured to violating civil liberties and human rights. It hosted a sadistic environment. Let us not emulate those cultures whose government officials torture people as punishment, to extort money from them (as the Palestinian authority does), or for perverted recreation. Government endangers liberty when it overrides individual rights.

Defenders of the Administration's methods bring up the scenario of capturing a terrorist who may know of a plot. They argue that it is justified to torture him to prevent terrorists from murdering innocent people. That is a difficult argument to refute. However, most of the people captured were not in such a position. As we pointed out, many were captured in error. As more Bush memos emerge, and Congress investigates, the question may be settled whether torture produced results that enhanced national security.

I wonder whether reliance upon torture replaces clever traditional interrogation.


Universities in the U.S. and Canada are firing crackpot leftist professors who lack academic credentials, flout the rules, neglect their subjects, and use their classrooms to promote their ideology.

Recently, Denis Rancourt was fired from the U. of Ottawa for insubordination. He violated University policies, as on grades. Having denied entry to his class to a mother, he also was accused of age discrimination. A third of his fellow professor petitioned for his dismissal.

He was not fired for antisemitism. However, he used to invite Holocaust-denier Michel Chossudovsky to lecture to his classes. Self-described as an anarchist, he turned his classroom into an indoctrination center against the Zionist lobby, the U.S., and capitalism. He claimed that the U.S. or "the Jews" caused 9/11.

The Left protests his firing as an assault on academic freedom. They blame the firing on the Jews.

Another pseudo-academic, Norman Finkelstein, also a Holocaust-denier, was fired from DePaul U., for failing to meet academic requirements. He, too, blamed the Zionist lobby for getting him fired, but "Finkelstein had never published a single bona fide academic journal article." (Prof. Steven Plaut of Haifa U., 4/18.)

When professors fail to teach their subjects, fail to qualify to teach their subjects, and abuse their power to indoctrinate students, they are cheating them of their education.

Remarking about an earlier article on unqualified leftist professors, someone complained that I didn't offer facts. I hope this suffices. The point of the other article was the arguments used, rather than the professors' lack of qualifications. Therefore I discussed the logic of their arguments. In still other articles, I focused on the facts. Can't repeat all the facts from earlier articles in all newer ones.


Israel's Prime Min. Netanyahu said that the world demands Israeli establishment of another Arab state, without demanding that the Arabs recognize the Jewish state. Failure to recognize Israel as such portends failure to reconcile with it.

Denying them sovereignty, he said, "We want for them to rule themselves, except for those powers that could threaten our security and our existence." (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/20).

NY Times Report

Pres. Ahmadinejad of Iran upset the Durban II Conference on discrimination by accusing Israel, and only Israel, of being repressive, cruel, and racist. He also accused Israel of military aggression, rendering the whole Palestinian nation homeless "under the pretext of Jewish suffering." [Implication: there was no Holocaust, but Jews pretended that there was, so the world would sympathize with their desire to enter Palestine.]

On hearing that, most of the European delegates walked out, joining those who had boycotted the Conference.

How Israel treats Palestinian Arabs is not pertinent to a conference on discrimination. Some of the conference planners had toned down the agenda's wording, to avoid appearing to make Israel a scapegoat and censoring truthful criticism of Islamic behavior. That attempt was too thinly veiled to cajole those who noticed that the agenda nevertheless endorsed Durban I, which did single out Israel and did neglect worldwide discrimination. Barbara Lee of the Congressional Black Caucus complained that Ahmadinmejad obscured "the only international forum to address racism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia."

Ahmadinejad complicates Western overtures to Iran. Secretary-General Ban rebuked hiom. The UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, "...made a no-so-subtle dig at Iran's treatment of its own minorities..." She said, "'This is what I would have expected the president of Iran to come and tell us: how he is addressing racial discrimination and intolerance in his country'...."

Pakistan's UN ambassador defended Ahmadinejad's right to speak his mind (Neil MacFarquhar, NY Times, 4/21, A4).

NY Times Editorial

The Times editorial described the speech as predictably divisive. It concluded that the UN cannot maintain credibility so long as it singles out Israel

It added "There are legitimate questions to be raised about Israel's handling of the Golan war, which had a disturbingly high number of civilian casualties." The editors suggested an "independent inquiry" about that and about Hamas liquidation of political opponents (4/21).

Evaluating The Criticism

(The term, "racist," is used too loosely for discrimination and bigotry.) The hint about Iranian discrimination omitted substance. It should at least have mentioned arbitrary capital punishment for the Bahai faithful and for Jews and Iranian support for bigoted terrorists. The hint was too ladylike! At a Conference called against bigotry, why miss that opportunity to specify Iran's sins?

The critics failed to point out that Ahmadinejad's accusations were unsubstantiated and insubstantial. They did not expose his lies as such and as part of Islamic bigotry against the Jewish people.

They let him get away with the very type of slander that the Conference was billed as opposing. Where is their courage? What kind of ethical standard have they?

Ahmadinejad's defamation of the Jewish people and state demonstrates the bigotry behind the jihad against Israel. Contrary to his supposition, Jewish sovereignty was programmed into the Palestine Mandate well before the Holocaust. (I have a copy of the Mandate, and it makes such intent clear.) Yes, the horror of the Holocaust gained sympathy for Jewish sovereignty. However, masses of Zionists prepared to settle in the Jewish homeland were cut to a trickle by the Holocaust (and the Communist counter-revolution in Russia).

Holocaust denial is not an intellectual matter to debate, but a psychosis to treat and a war tactic in jihad. It attempts to remove sympathy for the oppressed Jewish people, and to pretend that they took something that belongs to the Arabs. First the Muslim world exerted pressure upon Britain to keep the Jews out of Palestine and bottled up in Europe, where the Nazis liquidated millions of them. Now many Muslim leaders deny those deaths in which their parents were complicit and in which two Bosnian Muslim SS divisions played a role.

The claim that Israel committed military aggression against the Arabs is false and ludicrous. The Arabs started both a civil war and foreign wars against Israel. Israeli defense started out with far fewer troops and materiel than the Arabs had. Arab leaders declared intent to exterminate, just as the Nazis did. Most of the western Palestinian Arabs fled from war zones in advance, or as a result of Arab terrorism, or out of fear of defeat, or at the orders of the invading Arab generals. Others stayed. To claim that Israel made them all homeless is untrue. It was the Arabs' own fault for starting the wars.

Neither is it true that there was or is a Palestinian nation. At the time, the population that now pretends there is had denied there was a Palestinian nation. They described themselves as Muslims, Arabs, and sometimes as southern Syrians. The Zionists were called "Palestinians," though their nationality is Jewish. Decades later, the Arabs fabricated a Palestinian nationality for purposes of propaganda. They are good at propaganda.

In a way, the Times editors bolstered Ahmadinejad's stance. It gratuitously raised an irrelevant issue, Israel's military tactics. They just couldn't restrain themselves from bashing Israel. That out-of-place criticism reflects either: (a) A bending-over-backwards attempt to present themselves as fair; or (b) Their own bias against Zionism. The editorial did not disclose that the Times has been anti-Zionist since at least the 1920s, when the publisher formed an anti-Zionist organization called the American Council for Judaism.

Did you notice that the editorial suggested an inquiry into Israel's military conduct but not into Hamas'? Hamas made war by means of attacking civilians and used its own civilians as human shields and as cover for arms caches that sometimes exploded and killed civilians. Hamas and not Israel therefore is responsible physically and legally for the Arab civilian casualties.

The Pakistani Ambassador diverted attention, by mis-characterizing the problem as Ahmadinejad's freedom of speech. The problem was his abuse of the opportunity to speak. I suspect that the Ambassador agrees with Ahmadinejad. After all, Iran's President was cheered at the Conference. Generally, the Islamic governments there have a similar opinion, though some to a less extreme degree. They don't worry about being truthful, however, for jihad utilizes whatever means works.


I think that the critics are hypocrites. Their concern was that Iran spoiled a meeting in which they could self-righteously denounce various kinds of discrimination, without dealing with the Islamist religious aggression taking place all over the world. They knew that much of the denunciation would be calumny against Israel. I think they were prepared to accept that, for that is how the UN usually operates. As the Times admitted, the UN cannot maintain credibility so long as it picks on Israel. The UN has been doing that from the outset. When will the Times draw the proper conclusion about the UN, now a major font of bigotry?

(For my earlier piece on Durban II, see:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d21-Anticipating-Irans-speech-at-Durban-II/


The U.S. and other foreign governments have asked Israel not to permit execution of a civil court order to expel some Arab families from their house in eastern Jerusalem. One family was expelled some months ago, against U.S. protest. The State Dept. warns that Sec. Clinton is monitoring this situation.

The Sephardic Association claims ownership. Jews have been moving in (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/19).

Why is the U.S. interfering in internal Israeli affairs, and taking the Arab side, as it usually does? Has anybody heard of the US demanding that the Palestinian Authority stop punishing Arabs who sell land to Jews?


"Since the Taliban took control of Swat in February, executions, public floggings and bombings of girls' schools, restaurants, video and music stores have become routine occurrences." "And with just 60 miles now separating the Taliban from the capital city of

Islamabad, the Taliban are well positioned to continue their march across the country. Indeed, the Taliban appear unstoppable."

Wall Street Journal.: "...Taliban fighters are flooding the Swat Valley with thousands of veteran fighters from Afghanistan and Kashmir and setting up training camps throughout the areas. Moreover, they are recruiting — both through intimidation and persuasion — still more thousands of locals to join their lines."

The Taliban unified their commands in Pakistan and Afghanistan and re-allied themselves with al-Qaeda. That makes the US war in Afghanistan harder.

The U.S. finds the Taliban an existential danger to Pakistan. Pakistan could fall within the year. The nuclear weapons would become the terrorists'. Pres. Obama is finding himself stuck in defending against jihad just as Pres. Bush did. They see Afghanistan and Pakistan the same way.

What is the U.S. to do? (1) Seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? Difficult. (2) Destroy it? With what effect on the program and on nuclear fallout? (3) Let India destroy it, since it would be the first victim of irresponsible control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. But the U.S. might turn around and impose sanctions against India. The U.S. has told Israel not to destroy Iran's nuclear development facilities
(http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/17 from Caroline Glick).


Israel's Prime Minister reportedly said that he would not negotiate with the Palestinian Authority unless it recognized Israel as a Jewish state.

He now denies making recognition a precondition but asserts that such recognition is necessary for advancing the diplomatic process and reach a peace settlement. He would start negotiating without that recognition (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/20).

It the diplomatic process could not be advanced without that recognition, why start the process? Sounds more like a self-contradiction made after having been criticized, than a clarification. In any case, he is continuing Israel's mistake of negotiating without the Arab side showing good faith. The U.S. is liable to accuse Israel of blocking an agreement, however poor it be for Israel. The Palestinian Arabs keep making and breaking new agreements in return for Israeli concessions, without honoring their own commitments in prior agreements.


NATO forces prevented Somali pirates from seizing a Norwegian tanker and they freed the captives from another ship. In both instances, NATO captured the pirates, only to release them.

Sec. Clinton would rather the pirates be brought to justice, rather be released them. She wants them held accountable (NY Times, 4/21, A8).

No penalty, no disincentive. Unless the pirates are wiped out, they won't desist. Indeed, terrorists may take up that kind of piracy, if it can be done with impunity.

The report did not include NATO's reason for releasing the pirates Perhaps NATO fears that the pirates would take vengeance upon other kidnapped sailors.


Egypt government, having arrested a terrorist cell, accused Iran, Syria, and Qatar of plotting the government's overthrow. The terrorist cell was set up to incite rebellion by the Bedouin of Sinai. Syria harbored Hamas leaders, Qatar publicized their ideology on al-Jazeera TV, and Iran armed Hamas. The Hamas attack on Israel was meant to make Egypt look as if it were cooperating with Israel, said Egypt's official daily. The newspaper called Israel brutal in its self-defense (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/18).


Israel's chief intelligence officer in the prison system, Dr. Zvi Sela, a psychologist, held meetings with imprisoned terrorist leaders. He found them reasonable.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, head of the Independent Media Research & Analysis (IMRA), thinks Israeli officials lost their judgment upon meeting with leading terrorists. It would be like the feeling decent Americans sometimes get when socializing in a nightclub with the underworld.

Those terrorists keep informed sufficiently to run their terrorist operations from prison (http://www.imra.org.il/, 4/19).

Israeli high security prisons let terrorists have sufficient outside contact to direct terrorism. If the wardens kept terrorists from physical contact with visitors, the country would become much safer. Elementary!


Hackers cost the US, alone, some hundreds of million dollars a year. The government is advertising for hackers to help them protect sensitive files (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, (4/19).


Ziad Abu Alhaj is a Muslim clergyman in Gaza. He participated in the 2006 Congress of Imams and Rabbis for Peace. The delegates pledged to "'condemn any negative representation' of each other's religions."

In his April 3 sermon on Hamas TV, however, he advocated extermination of the Jewish people. He bases his view on the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion and on the Islamist interpretation of Islam that the Jewish people is genetically disposed to seek hegemony and murder. His bigotry is racist (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/19 from http://www.pmw.org.il — Palestinian Media Watch).

Mr. Alhaj is one of many Radical Muslims who deceive Westerners. To lull Western suspicion and defense, they pose in the West as tolerant. Speaking to their own people in their own language, however, they incite to hatred based on false history and false genetics, as did the Nazis. By their sermons, those Radical Muslims seeking hegemony and murder, just what they accuse the Jews of seeking. Western clergy, officials, and journalists must overcome their naivete, or be overcome by jihad.


Most of the half-billion dollars worth of heroin bought by Israeli addicts comes from Lebanon's Beqaa Valley. It is grown by Shiite villagers and passed through Israeli Arab crime families. Hizbullah takes a cut, to finance terrorism. The drug smugglers spy in Israel (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 4/19).
For more on terrorist financing, see: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d4-Narcotics-and-terrorism


StandWithUs is an activist educational organization having a dozen chapters and offices worldwide, including a strong presence in New York City. It seeks to correct misimpressions about Israel, and to give Israel's case a fairer hearing.

Here is how it dealt with the UN Human Rights Commission's second conference, Durban II:

It got protestors to the conference site at Geneva. Some stood with tape over their mouths. This symbolized the UN silence about genuine human rights oppression, as of Darfur blacks, women, gays, and of hate-indoctrinated children. [Those abuses all are perpetrated by Radical Muslims, but not only by them.] As a service to unaffiliated protestors, StandWithUs provided large placards.

When Iran's Pres. Ahmadinejad rose to speak, members of the French Union of Jewish Students, rose in clowns' costume, to ridicule his message. They were escorted outside, as many European conference delegates walked out. Outside were hundreds of students and other protestors, including from StandWithUs, chanting "Shame on the United Nations" and "We want human rights."

Indeed, the UN was shamed by the combination of walkout, boycott, and protest, receiving adverse publicity for obviously neglecting human rights issues in favor of defaming Israel, itself a victim of human rights violations by terrorists.

For more about the organization, see: http://www.standwithus.com/


Hamas has dug wider tunnels. It smuggled in heavy weapons and armed vehicles. It plans reliance on anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, rather than on bombs, booby-trapped buildings, and civvies (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 4/22).
For more on this
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m4d13-Hamas-smuggling-worse-weapons-in


The P.A. in Judea-Samaria is not conducting much terrorism. Its president, Abbas, declares that terrorism is not worthwhile, for now. However, his fellow leaders of the Fatah faction there call for more terrorism. Unaffiliated individuals oblige. Noticeably more of them have been attacking or attempting to attack Israelis there, recently.

Hamas, which never stopped calling for more terrorism, has been gaining popularity at Fatah's expense (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7).

Indoctrinated by the P.A. in its ideology of intolerance and violence, the Palestinian Arabs there insist on more terrorism more than their regime would like for the time being. The regime thinks it can gain more by negotiating concessions, then by extorting more concessions, then by all-out war.


An Israeli intelligence study finds Iran using the anti-Western leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, as entrée to Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador. All their regimes share dislike for the U.S.

Iran hopes to entrench itself in Latin America. It uses money and operatives, to promote its anti-Western ideology and to gain allies against sanctions on Iran. Hizbullah raises funds in joint operations with S. American crime syndicates. It spreads propaganda and makes converts.

Iran has succeeded in spoiling relations between Israel and some countries there (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7).

This is serious. Iran was much less entrenched in Latin America, years ago, when Hizbullah blew up a Jewish center in Argentina. Note, the victims were local Jews, not Israelis. Sometimes Radical Muslims claim they are not religiously biased, just interested in helping Palestinian Arabs, but they attack Jews whether Israelis or not. Why? (1) Their ideology supersedes notions of nationality; religion to them is paramount; and (2) They imagine Jews are a race, and that consequently all Jews have the same motives.

Radical Islam's racist notion about Jews is not only false. It reflects ignorance of heredity. Cultural traits are not genetic, not inherited. In modern society, a given culture does not pass its values thoroughly to all its members. If Radical Muslims were interested in ascertaining the facts, they would find that Judaism and Jews estranged from Judaism generally value saving lives, not, as accused, taking lives. Unfortunately, Radical Muslims don't deal in facts.


Radical Muslim oppression of Muslims mars the reputation of Islam much more than Danish cartoons do. "But there is the beginning of an intellectual reform movement in the Islamic world, and one window into this opening was an international conference this week at the University of Notre Dame on the latest scholarship about the Koran."

The new scholarship analyzes the holy text within its historical and linguistic context. This method is comparable with the study of the Bible that found different styles within what was supposed to be one person's gospel.

Analysis of the Koran provides evidence that previous text was deleted and later ones were interpolated. Some Islamic scholars conclude that the Koran favored more social justice and women's rights than current orthodoxy supposes.

Islamic scholars in the Middle Ages were more flexible and open-minded about the meaning of the Koran than contemporary ones, except, surprisingly, in Iran. In the year 1,000, scholars contended that the Koran need not be taken literally.

If this reform movement takes hold, it "will be the best weapon yet against extremism (Nicholas D. Kristof, NY Times, 4/23, Op.-Ed).

Problem is, Iran is only months away from possessing nuclear weapons, and the Taliban are perhaps months away from seizing Pakistan's. An Islamic Reformation is not likely to mature in time to de-legitimize and defeat the Radical Muslim extremists.

The newspaper article gave more examples of the new scholarship. I omitted them, because it is up to Islamic scholars to judge their significance. Pint is, questions are being asked, now. Significant to Western society is whether the reformation develops into tolerance. Tolerance would make a basis for peace.


An FBI interrogator of suspected terrorists, Ali Soufan, disputes assertions that torture provides useful and otherwise unavailable information. He claims that the traditional methods of interrogation elicit more useful information than torture does, and without violating human rights. He wants U.S. torture exposed more, but officials not punished, just given new rules. He thinks that the officials didn't use torture much, but that private contractors did. He contends that the secrecy involved re-instituted non-cooperation between the FBI and CIA, that let the 9/11 terrorists slip in (NY Times, 4/23, Op.Ed.).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, May 17, 2009.

According to a meeting in mid-March with a top CIA asset, Gary Berntsen, President Obama will be in Afghanistan for "a looong time, maybe 10 years. Or more."

A decorated Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) career officer, Berntsen served in the Directorate of Operations, October 1982 to June 2005. At the CIA, he was CIA Station Chief three separate times, and spearheaded some of the CIA's most prominent counterterrorism deployments, which included the US response to the East Africa Embassy dramatic timed bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the 9/11 attacks. In 2000 he was recipient of the Distinguished Intelligence Medal and this was followed in 2004 by the Intelligence Star. He returned to Afghanistan as civilian advisor for Regional Command East on IED networks within the division of NATO acronymically tagged ISAF.

Berntsen is responding, says this great author and rapid-fire talker, to reports that we need to quell Afghanistan because — aside from other obvious reasons — it is incendiary and next to Pakistan, with its nuclear devices and its 175 mm people (imagine — this populous and religiously fermenting place, nearly under the sway of the relentlessly immoderate, fiercely murderous Taliban...the mind reels).

One glimmer of light: While we fear that this newbie Prez has an agenda that tilts rather precipitously toward our erstwhile brethren from long ago, my feeling is that BHO shall — willy nilly — need Israel, because he will be in a passel of over-commitment to forces and troubled real estate that will be, frankly, unavoidable.

The intel maven, author of JAWBREAKER, Quds Force (fiction, August 2008) and Human Intelligence, Counterterrorism, and National Leadership: A Practical Guide (November 2008) wrote his latest opus for the incoming head of state. HICNL includes detailed policy references, prescriptions and recommendations. He says that this new prez has assembled a "pretty good team" for the prosecution of the coming operations. But, Berntsen warns, the question is how he will deploy them. How will he manage the counter-insurgency? This, he stresses, is always the key to calm.

The goal for them, he repeats, is not democracy, which will not fly in these untrammeled, wild, unsettled, rocky, primitive, largely uncontemporary regions. The goal is, instead, stability. With a strongman head honcho, either local, or (preferably) American at the top.

The Afghanis have humbled powerful countries before this, and we have only 17,000 guys on the hook to go there with marching porders in the next year, when the number needed to quell the mess is, Berntsen says, at least triple that.

As an optimistic coda, he also maintains we will get UBL sooner or later. He was famously near to killing him at Tora Bora, and that but for a garbled and, yes, bad decision by the former White House, undersourcing and consequent undersupply (now that we are incredulous at the hash being made by the new one, the ''cool" one, the one who's joined at the lip to the Teleprompter, goes on late-night TV and writes out basketball futures), that one we are clearly missing long about now, we would have gotten him.

"Bush made many good moves," he avers, and was "pretty good in decision-making" in general, along with some of the generals, Cheney and so on, but that the missed opportunity was ''heartbreaking'' for being so close, but so wrong when they needed to act on their own. General Petraeus is fixing the fence, he notes. Spectacularly, he allows.

Fascinating tales of stealthy night raids and teen-aged guides, the sons of warlords and various local tribes, sects. A small, deft, silken-masterful cadre taking on hundreds. With few casualties. Fabulous: We are in our Tom Clancy modes, great. Even unheralded, we are better than the US public gets to hear.

The CIA man with a tight, sturdy, almost bullet-like frame says "they like us," even though the Taliban don't, can't. They just "like to kill things." Why do they do it? Not a simplistic single answer. But not the obvious — wrong — one, either. It is not poverty or resentment. It is not the slogans and the low-hanging fruit, elusive earnest explanations that don't take enough into account, either.

The French are doing a good job, he says — better than we hear. The French Foreign Legion model works for this part of the globe. I've been to the rock and sand spit where the French Foreign Legion, the last hope for despairing and reckless men with nothing to lose, go to have a portion of derring do. Or Three. The Comorros, the Lesser and Greater Comorros. Dusty, burning sand, Nothing on the roads but road.

The Poles and Canadians and Brits, too, are doing well. For the rest, they are Katzenjammer Kids — specifically, he says, to laughter, the Germans. Mostly known for being not on the field.

Proper counter-insurgency is the trick. And since 2/3 of the 'police forces' there, "after 11 whole days of training," are completely illiterate and have zero experience of the world outside their humble villages, they cannot be a force to reckon with. They cannot even speak Dari, their national tongue. Instead, they speak Pashto, their dialect, but cannot read/write a word, so their empathy is decidedly opaque. They need to be taught to read/write to become proper restraining forces and military worthy of their salt.

The One has bitten off rather more than he can comfortably chew, and one wonders why, with his anti-military stance — exceedingly clear to a blind man — he adopted this as his pet project, maybe as the way to patronize and convince the armed services that he does not in fact loathe them. Every president has his special project, the way every First Lady becomes identified with Reading or Special Needs Children, Beautification or the like. This novitiate will be adopting Afghanistan as his class assignment.

That initiative in mid-March was a strange and unprecedented one: have soldiers pay for their own meds and healthcare...! Such a thing has never been proposed, even in the bleakest and blackest humor since the starving forces of the Civil War were rag-tagging it back to their one-time hearths. Even then, after a bruising war, the union was a wreck and there was no money left in the treasury. At least Obama retracted that bizarre notion, getting a taste of veteran outrage.

Otherwise, the country has always stood by its soldiery — to do otherwise is to posit an oxymoronic stance v. the country he supposedly loves. I have never heard of such a vile suggestion. Even Stalin — if he had the resources — repaired his military once they were injured. The Obama seems to be scraping the bottom. And this is only his 2nd month. Marion DS Dreyfus is a British-born journalist, author and travelor, with interests in Middle East politics, medicine and emerging technology. Contact her at mdsdm@rcn.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, May 17, 2009.

This is a book review by Lori Lowenthal Marcus and it appeared today in the American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_late_great_state_of_israel.html Lori Lowenthal Marcus writes about the Middle East.



The Late Great State of Israel: How enemies within and without threaten the Jewish nation's survival
by Aaron Klein
Publisher: WND books
April 28, 2009

Aaron Klein, the intrepid Middle East bureau reporter for World Net Daily, hopes that his new book, The Late Great State of Israel, will blast open the tightly shut eyelids of most of the Western world in time to prevent the demise of the Jewish State. The most striking way he does that is by revealing that all of us — the Bush and the Obama administrations and the rest of the world — have been hoodwinked into actively participating in the Final Solution proudly and publicly trumpeted by the, at least thus far, "organizationa non grata" Islamic terrorist group Hamas.

For the past four years Aaron Klein has been reporting from Israel, covering every major event in the news vortex of the Middle East. There are many differences between Klein and nearly all the other Middle East journalists: he actually interviews the Arab Palestinian terrorist leaders and asks them about their plans to annihilate Israel, the extent of their military build-up, and the degree to which weaponry provided by the West to support Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party has been acquired by Hamas. The terrorists answer Klein honestly and unequivocally. Read this book and find out what they say.

Klein knows that merely exposing the unabashed genocidal agendas of the Muslim world's terrorist leadership will not, because thus far it has not, motivate any organized efforts to thwart them. He knows that because, despite the reports he files directly quoting those terrorist leaders' statements of their intention to annihilate the Jews, no outcry has been heard to permanently deprogram the terrorists, let alone any efforts to actually eliminate them. That is, unless you consider the modern version of torture known as dialoguing terrorists to death.

So what information does Klein provide to start the revolution?

Klein spells out in elaborate, substantiated detail the extent to which Hamas has infiltrated Fatah. In those situations most relevant to US and world aid to and support of Fatah, Fatah is Hamas. Trying to hold hands with one but not the other is impossible.

But wait! Aren't Fatah and Hamas locked in a death struggle, the winner of which gets to be the official terrorist group of the Arab Palestinians? How could they be the same? There are two answers to that, an obvious one nicely wrapped in a maxim, and one that Klein has mined from his exhaustive investigative reporting.

Both Fatah and Hamas define themselves almost exclusively as genocide-seeking enemies of Israel; they are aligned in hatred against their common enemy — the Jewish State. So, as the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's the obvious one.

Now let's turn to the more significant factor. This one completely spins the aforementioned maxim on its head: sometimes the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy — especially when those enemies are not just similar in principle, but are actually the same.

Here's an example which Klein documents in detail: Just before Hamas routed Fatah in Gaza, Israeli security officials "warned that all major intelligence and security organizations associated with Fatah were in a state of 'deep infiltration" by Hamas." In fact, in one of the interviews that makes this account so valuable, Klein learns from a Fatah intelligence official that after the Hamas Gaza takeover, "Fatah officials found Hamas had penetrated their security organizations at the very highest levels."

But we do not have to rely on anonymous quotes from Fatah officials, as Klein further explains: On July 27, 2007, Abbas released a 200 page report of an investigation into the conduct of Fatah fighters in Gaza. The goal of the report was to uncover the reasons why Fatah's control of Gaza crumbled so quickly and completely to Hamas. Nabil Amr, a senior Abbas aide who served on the investigative committee, stated on the record that it was because "Fatah security forces were in a state of infiltration by Hamas."

And here's the biggest jaw-dropper: while intending to support and bolster Fatah to defeat Hamas, the United States may actually have been helping Hamas defeat Fatah.

Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, the American security coordinator in the region, birthed the eponymous US strategy. The Dayton Plan was for the US to strengthen Fatah's security forces so that Fatah would defeat Hamas, a scourge both to Fatah and the US. Yet Klein shows that, by coordinating strategy with a Hamas spy, it appears that the US actually helped Hamas bring down Fatah. Klein outs the Hamas mole and explains how the evidence, including admissions by Fatah leaders, fits together.

Dayton has a lead role in another, painful episode in Klein's book. Klein reveals how the US-trained Palestinian troops turned tail and scattered every time they were charged with confronting Hamas terrorists, even on their own turf. In a repeated Twilight-Zone like scenario, the Israeli Defense Forces had to step in and defend its sworn enemy, Fatah, from its other sworn enemy, Hamas. In April, Lt. Gen. Dayton addressed a US newly-trained Palestinian battalion: "As I look at you, I couldn't be more proud of the fact that you stepped up to be the founders of a Palestinian state." The greatest irony, of course, is that in order to support the charade of a finely-trained Fatah militia, the Israeli military seems well on its way to being pretzel-twisted into stepping up as the actual "founders of a Palestinian state."

The Late Great State of Israel is a lament from a very well-informed insider who fears it will be too late before the world awakens to the endgame taking place in the Middle East. He provides example after well-researched, documented example of the almost total inversion of reality to reportage on the Arab-Israeli conflict. If just one of his other chapters, each of which is devoted to another inverted reality, shakes up readers, Klein's gloom may lift. But if even the chapter about the Hamas-Fatah convergence doesn't cause an avalanche of reality-realignments, Klein's despair will be entirely justified.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, May 17, 2009.

This was written by David Harris, Executive Director, American Jewish Committee (AJC) and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post

This is as clear and simple a case as can be made about the ioi syndrome. As jeffrey goldberg says in today's Times, israel fears amalek's arsenal. Shimon Peres has admitted he was dead wrong in supporting the gaza withdrawal. No more foolish mistakes — the stakes are life and death.


It's the misguided notion, peddled in the name of Israel's best interests by some in the diplomatic, academic, and media worlds, that if only Israel did this or that, peace with its neighbors would be at hand. But since it doesn't, then Israel constitutes the principal, perhaps only, real obstacle to a new day in the Middle East.

Striking, isn't it?

Poor Israel. If only it had the visual acuity of these "enlightened" souls, then all would be hunky-dory. After all, according to them, Israel holds all the cards, yet refuses to play them.

The thinking goes: Why can't those shortsighted Israelis figure out what needs to be done — it's so obvious to us, isn't it? — so the conflict can be brought to a screeching halt?

It's the misguided notion, peddled in the name of Israel's best interests by some in the diplomatic, academic, and media worlds, that if only Israel did this or that, peace with its neighbors would be at hand. But since it doesn't, then Israel constitutes the principal, perhaps only, real obstacle to a new day in the Middle East.

Striking, isn't it?

Poor Israel. If only it had the visual acuity of these "enlightened" souls, then all would be hunky-dory. After all, according to them, Israel holds all the cards, yet refuses to play them.

The thinking goes: Why can't those shortsighted Israelis figure out what needs to be done — it's so obvious to us, isn't it? — so the conflict can be brought to a screeching halt?

Thus, if only Israel froze settlements. If only Israel removed checkpoints. If only Israel recognized the Hamas government in Gaza. If only Israel stopped assuming the worst about Iran's "pragmatic" leadership, which just wants a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes. If only Israel got beyond its Holocaust trauma. If only Israel ______ well, you can fill in the blank.

The point is that, for sufferers of IOI, it essentially all comes down to Israel.

And the IOI syndrome has only been strengthened by the advent of the new Israeli government, of course.

After all, media outlets from the Associated Press to CBS News to Der Spiegel have already branded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as "hardline" from the get-go. Their word choice simply reinforces the notion that the conflict is all about alleged Israeli intransigence.

At moments like this, it's important to underscore a few basic points too often lost in the din.

First, the Netanyahu government follows on the heels of three successive Israeli governments that sought to achieve peace based on a two-state settlement with the Palestinians — and failed. Each of those governments went far in attempting to strike a deal, but ultimately to no avail.

Prime Minister Ehud Barak, joined by President Bill Clinton, tried mightily to reach an agreement with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. The answer was a thunderous rejection, accompanied by the launching of a new wave of terror attacks on Israel.

And, not to be forgotten, a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon also took place during the Barak era. It was met by the entrenchment of Hizbullah, committed to Israel's destruction, in the emptied space. No good deed goes unpunished!

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon defied his own Likud Party — indeed, he left it to create a new political bloc — and faced down thousands of settlers and their supporters to leave Gaza entirely. It was the first chance ever for Gaza's Arab residents to govern themselves.

Had Gazans seized the opportunity in a responsible manner, they could have created unstoppable momentum for a second phase of withdrawal from the West Bank. Instead, Gaza quickly turned itself into a terrorist redoubt, realizing Israelis' worst fears.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, joined by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and urged on by Washington, pressed hard for a deal with the Palestinians on the West Bank. According to Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, the most recent Israeli offer "talked about Jerusalem and almost 100 percent of the West Bank." Not only was the offer not accepted, but there was not even a counteroffer from the Palestinian side.

Prime Minister Netanyahu inherits a situation in which (a) Hamas holds the reins of power in Gaza and a growing arsenal; (b) Hizbullah is continuing to gain strength in Lebanon; (c) the Palestinian Authority failed to take Olmert's outstretched hand and make a deal; (d) indirect talks between Israel and Syria, brokered by Turkey, did not produce an accord on Olmert's watch; and (e) Iran continues its march toward nuclear weapons capability, while trumpeting its support for Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah.

So before Prime Minister Netanyahu gets further lectures on what needs to be done from New York Times or Financial Times editorial writers or columnists, or from American Jewish groups who profess to love Israel more than Israel loves itself, or from some European leaders eager for a deal at practically any cost, perhaps we should take some stock of what's transpired — and why.

There have been three successive and bold Israeli efforts to create a breakthrough — and three successive failures.

The vast majority of Israelis are desperately hungry for peace and understand the considerable price the country will have to pay in territory and displaced population. Poll after poll proves their readiness, but only if they are assured that lasting peace will be the outcome.

Israelis don't have to be pushed, prodded, nudged, cajoled, or pressured to seek a comprehensive peace beyond its current treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

They have lived with the absence of peace for 61 years, and know better than anyone else the jarring physical and psychological toll it has inflicted on the nation.

Rather, they have to be convinced that the tangible rewards justify the immense risks for a small state in a tough area. Those rewards begin with its neighbors' acceptance of Israel's rightful place in the region as a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders.

And that, far more than settlements, checkpoints, or any of the other items on the IOI bill of particulars, gets to the essence of the conflict.

The Gaza disengagement demonstrated that settlements and checkpoints can be removed when the time comes.

But unless and until Israel's neighbors recognize its inherent legitimacy, and stop viewing it as a temporary interloper that can be defeated militarily or swamped by Palestinian "refugees," then whatever the IOI crowd insists upon will be a secondary issue in the real world.

Unless and until this recognition is reflected in Palestinian and other Arab textbooks, where children have been taught for generations that Israelis are modern-day Crusaders to be driven out, then what hope is there for the future?

Unless and until the Palestinian Authority succeeds in building a serious governing structure, including an enhanced capacity and political will to combat Palestinian terrorism, then Israel will have no choice but to operate in the West Bank to prevent attacks against its civilians.

And unless and until the forces seeking Israel’s annihilation — from Iran's current regime to Hamas to Hizbullah — are marginalized or replaced by those committed to coexistence, then there will always be a long shadow cast over the road to peace. Some would argue that this view gives the spoilers too much power over the process. I believe it simply acknowledges the inescapable and ominous reality that Israel faces.

As Prime Minister Netanyahu makes his first visit to Washington since his election earlier this year, and as the IOI chorus once again raises the decibel level, let's hope that cooler heads prevail.

Israel doesn't need sanctimonious lectures on peace. It needs genuine partners for peace. Without them, peace remains elusive. With them, peace becomes inevitable.

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 17, 2009.

Now, as we approach the meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu — who does not utter that phrase "two-state solution" — and President Obama — who has committed himself to formation of a Palestinian state. Now, is the time to hear this and share this.

MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, follows what Arabs are saying in Arabic to other Arabs — in TV interviews, speeches, editorials and more — and provides translations. These are the words that provide the surest key to what the Arabs intend. Yet these are the words most often ignored by politicians (decision-makers) and media. Which means that decision makers and media — afloat in an aura of wishful thinking — are often lost with regard to those intentions.


On May 7, Abbas Zaki, who is PLO Ambassador to Lebanon, gave an interview on ANB TV (Lebanon).

It's time, he said, to stop fooling around with half-way measures in dealing with Israel, and to come to a final agreement. Everyone talks about a two-state solution:

"With the two-state solution, in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People? What will become of all the sacrifices they made — just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward."

Can it get any clearer than this? (Thanks! Cheryl H.)

The clip (in Arabic with translation) can be seen at:

The transcript of the (translated) interview is at:


I will suggest to my American readers that this quote and the URLs for the clip and transcript be sent to President Obama immediately. Ask him if he knows what he's pushing.
Phone: 202-456-1111    Fax: 202-456-2461
E-mail form at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Send this material as well to your elected representatives and senators:

To locate your representatives:

To locate your senators:


A note of explanation here. Zaki speaks in his interview of how they shouldn't give Israel a hudna anymore, as this allows Israel to strengthen. I found this amusing. A hudna is an Islamic term, not a Western or Israeli one, and it reflects an Islamic concept of warfare. While the word is often translated as "truce," what it more accurately means is an agreed upon temporary cessation of hostilities that allows Muslim forces to strengthen towards the day when hostilities will be initiated again. This is what Hamas aims for when it seeks a ceasefire with us.

Zaki was a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and has served as head of Fatah operations; he is presently a PLO Central Committee member.


There is considerable press being dedicated to that meeting between Netanyahu and Obama tomorrow, with various predictions as to how hard Obama will lean on Netanyahu and how likely it is that Netanyahu will cave (and finally utter that "two state" phrase).

We must hope (and pray) that Netanyahu has gotten the message here: We don't want him to shift his current position. The feeling is so strong that I believe he will risk his coalition if he agrees to start negotiations on a Palestinian state.

Most of the Likud faction is opposed to his doing this — in particular influential ministers such as Moshe Yaalon, Benny Begin and Yisrael Katz — and there is even talk of a rebellion within the party should Netanyahu give way. Likud MK Danny Danon wrote a letter to the prime minister last week urging him to stay strong; Danon reports that Netanyahu assured him not to worry.

Other right wing factions within the coalition are equally concerned, while residents of Judea and Samaria have demonstrated outside of Netanyahu's residence, urging him to stay strong. Likud MK Ofir Akonis says that "The vast majority of Israelis, including representatives of the Opposition in Knesset, reject this formula" — two-states, which would (as the Palestinians intend it) ultimately be for one people. He believes that Netanyahu, who understands the situation, will not commit to establishment of a Palestinian state while in Washington.

Only Barak and his Labor associates are pushing for negotiations for two states.


There is the possibility, as well, that Obama is not even planning on lowering the boom on our prime minister on their very first meeting.

According to unnamed senior White House officials cited by YNet, Obama will not be advancing a new plan for Middle East peace now, but will be pushing for compliance on both sides with regard to Road Map stipulations.

While Obama has already met with Jordan's King Abdullah, he is scheduled to meet with Egypt's President Mubarak and PA President Abbas only after meeting with Netanyahu. He may yet be in relationship-building and fact-finding mode with respect to the various Middle East leaders he will be speaking with.


We must remember, as well, that while Netanyahu has said he would be going to Washington with a plan for dealing with the Palestinians based on a fresh analysis of the situation, his primary concern is Iran.

On this issue, as well, there is no meeting of the minds between Israeli and US officials, so that the possibility of conflict presents itself. But here, too, I am seeing what seems to me a subtle shift in tone from Obama. He is certainly not withdrawing his intention to pursue dialogue with Iran, but he made some statements that surprised me in an interview with Newsweek that is currently on its website.

"I understand very clearly that Israel considers Iran an existential threat, and given some of the statements that have been made by President Ahmadinejad, you can understand why." This doesn't mean he thinks Iran represents an existential threat, but he's coming part way.

In fact, said the president, since Israel is "right there in the range [of Iranian missiles], their calculation of costs and benefits are (sic) going to be more acute." Thus he didn't see it as his place to "determine for the Israelis what their security needs are."



Why is it then, that, according to the Post, CIA director Leon Panetta, during his trip here three weeks ago urged our leaders to "tone down" our pronouncements with regard to attacks on Iran? This is being seen as counterproductive to the US policy of reaching out a hand of peace to the Iranians — offering them inclusion in the international community in return for abandoning their nuclear development.

While Netanyahu refused to take the possibility of our attacking Iran off the table, promises were made to Panetta that "there will be no surprises": the US will be informed if we move to attack. It is not clear to me if this means notice would be considerably in advance of an attack, or very briefly before ("we're going into the air in an hour") to preclude US moves to stop us.


There are mixed messages being delivered as to how the US will handle itself when dialogue with Iran fails. In that interview alluded to above, Obama said:

"...the approach we are taking is one that has to be given a chance and offers the prospect of security, not just for the United States but also for Israel, that is superior to some of the other alternatives."

However, he explained, he wasn't naive, and "I've been very clear that I don't take any options off the table with respect to Iran..." (Have some of his aides injected a note of realism into his thinking?)

This delivers a different message than the one coming from US officials concerned about Israel sounding too bellicose. They, according to the Post, acknowledge that Obama's efforts may fail, but they say that in this case it may be necessary for the US and its allies to live with a nuclear Iran. (So say they.) And — the most disgusting part of this entire scenario — either way there should be no threats. Talk about an appeasing attitude.


The budget has passed in the Cabinet and is expected to also pass in the Knesset. I'm particularly glad for this now, as internal struggling in the face of all we have to contend with on the outside would weaken us.


Pope Benedict is back at the Vatican, which is just fine with most of us.

I observed that he said what his hosts of the moment wanted to hear, so that, for example, he lamented with the Palestinians regarding the suffering they endure because of the imposition of the security fence: "In a world where more and more borders are being opened up — to trade, to travel, to movement of peoples, to cultural exchanges — it is tragic to see walls still being erected." But when he was with Peres he addressed the unfortunate need to put up such a barrier against terrorism. A pointless exercise, finally.

But in the end what raised my hackles the most was his statement to Abbas:

"Mr. President, the Holy See supports the right of your people to a sovereign Palestinian homeland in the land of your forefathers."

Excuse me? This land is our homeland, the land of our forefathers.


The new PA government, which was supposed to have been sworn in by now, is being delayed because of internal Fatah tensions regarding its composition.


I am currently in the midst of a major report on UNRWA, which has particular significance because of Hamas connections to this agency and international intentions of using it as a conduit of fund for reconstruction in Gaza.

And so, please, bear with me, my friends, if I am slow in answering communication. I will try not to skip posting on any day on which there are significant happenings.

There are, actually, several other issues regarding the UN that I want to look at, as well, in my postings.


"The Good News Corner"

Prof. Abraham Katzir of Tel Aviv University's School of Physics and Astronomy has developed a technique for identifying contaminated water, even though it looks clear to the naked eye, by use of the infrared spectrum, which is not visible to humans.

Using a specially designed infrared spectrometer that is connected by fibers to the water source, this system is able to detect contamination as soon as it enters a reservoir or pipeline and notify authorities immediately. It can detect poison in amounts well below the thresholds set by the World Health Organization, and may be the first real-time monitor to protect against chemical attack.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, May 17, 2009.

This comes from Daddy Day and is archived at


Our condition, in Israel, has never been better than it is now! Only the television and the media make people think that the end of the world is near.

Only 65 years ago, Jews were brought to death like sheep to slaughter. NO country, NO army. Only 60 years ago, seven Arab countries declared war on little Israel, the Jewish State, just a few hours after it was established.

We were 650,000 Jews against the rest of the Arab world. No IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) or Air Force. We were only a small group of stubborn people with nowhere to go.

Remember: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordn, Egypt, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, they all attacked at once. The state that the United Nations "gave" us was 65% desert. We started it from zero.

Only 41 years ago, we fought three of the strongest countries in the Middle East, and we crushed them in the Six Day War.

Over the years we fought different coalitions of Arab countries with modern armies and with huge amounts of Russian-Soviet ammunition, and we still won.

Today we have a beautiful country, a powerful Army, a strong Air Force, an adequate Navy and a thriving high teach industry. Intel, Microsoft, and IBM have all developed their businesses here.

Our doctors have won important prizes in the medical development field.

We turned the desert into a prosperous land

We sell oranges, flowers, and vegetables around the world

We launched our own satellite! Three satellites at once! We are in good company; together with the USA (280 million residents), Russia (220 million residents), China (1.3 billion residents) and Europe ( France, England and Germany 350 million residents), we are one of the only countries in the world that have launched something into space!

Israel today is among the few powerful countries that have nuclear technology & capabilities. (We will never admit it, but everyone knows.)

To think that only 65 years ago we were disgraced and hopeless.

We crawled out from the burning crematoriums of Europe.

We won in all our wars. With a little bit of nothing we built an empire.

Who are Khaled Mashal (leader of Hamas) or Hassan Nasrallah (leader of Hezbollah) trying to frighten us? They are amusing us. As we celebrate Independence Day, let's not forget what this holy day is all about; we overcame everything.

We overcame the Greeks; We overcame the Romans; We overcame the Spanish Inquisition; We overcame the Russians pogrom; We overcame Hitler, we overcame Germany and overcame the Holocaust; We overcame the armies of seven countries.

Relax chevray (friends), we will overcome our current enemies.

Never mind where you look in human history. Think about it, the Jewish nation, our condition has never been better than now. So let's lift our heads up and remember:

Never mind which country or culture tries to harm us or erase us from the world. We will still exist and persevere. Egypt ? Anyone know where the Egyptian empire disappeared to? The Greeks? Alexander Macedon? The Romans? Is anyone speaking Latin today? The Third Reich? Did anyone hear news from them lately?

And look at us, the Bible nation! From slavery in Egypt, we are still here, still speaking the same language. Exactly here, exactly now.

Maybe The Arabs don't know it yet, but we are an eternal nation. All the time that we keep our identity, we will stay eternal. We are not worrying, complaining, crying, or fearing!

Business here is beseder (fine). It can definitely be much better, but it is still fine. Don't pay attention to the nonsense in the media, they will not tell you about our festivals here in Israel or about the people that continue living, going out, meeting friends.

Yes, sometimes morale is down, so what? This is only because we are mourning the dead while they are celebrating spilled blood. And this is the reason we will survive after all.

Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Spyer, May 17, 2009.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and President Bashar Assad of Syria reconfirmed the close alliance between their two countries during the Iranian president's visit to Damascus this week.

Ahmadinejad's visit came on the eve of the return of two senior US officials, Jeffrey Feltman and Daniel Shapiro, to Damascus. Their visit is part of ongoing US efforts at engagement with Syria. The tone struck by Ahmadinejad and Assad this week, however, did not suggest a mood for compromise.

Syrian President Bashar Assad, in his address to the joint press conference held by the two presidents after their meeting, accurately summed up the Iranian-Syrian alliance as based upon both "principles and interests."

It is sometimes suggested that the Syrian-Iranian alliance is a marriage of convenience between two essentially incompatible regimes. This view is incorrect. The alliance is of long standing, is rooted in shared interests and expresses itself in a shared ideological conception — that of the idea of muqawama (resistance) to the supposed ambitions of the West and Israel in the region.

Ahmadinejad's and Assad's statements following their meeting offer evidence of the depth and nature of the alliance.

The Iranian president mocked US attempts at engagement, saying "We don't want honey from bees that sting us. Efforts must be made to rid the region of the presence of foreigners." He went on to demand US withdrawal from "Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan."

Ahmadinejad's speech radiated the sense that Iranian defiance was bringing results. The Iranian president noted that those who once sought to put pressure on Syria and Iran were now obliged to seek the assistance of these countries.

"Harmony and steadfastness," he said, "are the secret of victory." He went on to demand reform of the United Nations, reiterating a claim he made in his recent Geneva speech that the international body failed to reflect a world in which the balance of forces was changing.

The Syrian president struck a similar tone. Assad said that Ahmadinejad's visit confirmed once more the "strategic relationship" between the two countries. He expressed the support of Syria and Iran for Palestinian "resistance."

Assad then detailed Syria and Iran's common satisfaction regarding current developments in Iraq, and noted Syria's support for the Iranian nuclear program. He also cast an eye over the history of the relationship between the two countries. He noted that Syria had supported Iran at the time of the Islamic Revolution and in the subsequent Iran-Iraq War, and that Damascus had in return benefited from Iranian support when under pressure in recent years.

The words of the two presidents, for those listening closely, are instructive in grasping both the principles and the interests underlying the Syrian-Iranian alliance.

Regarding principles — the two speeches reflect the joint adoption of a secular language of nationalist, anti-Western assertion which is reminiscent of earlier times.

These ideas may have faded from view in the West in recent years, but they retain popularity among broad populations in the Arab world. The Iranians — non-Sunnis and non-Arabs — want to enlist this appeal to their own banner, presenting themselves as the natural representative of all those countries and forces opposing the West in the region.

Syria, meanwhile, has long been the chief guardian among the Arabs of the archaic slogans of third-worldism and defiance. Iranian rhetoric of this kind sits well with the Syrians. The Assad regime, of course, is committed ultimately to its own survival, and not to any ideological path. But there is no sense that an alliance based on an appeal of this kind is in any way unnatural or uncomfortable for the Syrians. On the contrary, it fits perfectly the defiant stance that has enabled the Syrian Ba'athists to punch above their weight in the region for a generation.

Regarding interests, Assad's whistle-stop tour through the history of the relationship reminds us of its longevity.

The mullahs in Teheran and the Ba'athist family dictatorship in Damascus have stuck together for a long time.

The Syrian dictator's expressions of quiet satisfaction at the current turn of events in Iraq, and Ahmadinejad's characteristic tone of triumphalism confirm that the partnership continues to bear fruit.

The next arena for the meeting point of Syrian and Iranian principles and interests is Lebanon, which may shortly be added to the regional alliance headed by these countries. Next month's Lebanese elections formed the backdrop to Ahmadinejad's visit, and perhaps explain the hurried return of Feltman and Shapiro. No doubt the two US officials will reassert the need for noninterference in the upcoming polls, which the Hizbullah-led alliance is favored to win.

Lebanon has long been the ideal arena for the meeting of Iranian and Syrian principles and interests. It is worth remembering that as far back as 1982, it was Syrian facilitation of the entry of 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards into the Lebanese Bekaa which made possible the subsequent foundation of Hizbullah. This long investment may be about to pay off.

In any case, the general direction of events in the region appears to the liking of the two good friends from Damascus and Teheran — offering the prospect of many good years of friendship to come.

Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the (GLORIA) Global Research in International Affairs Center at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya. Contact Gloria by email at info@gloria-center.org This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post on the 6/5/2009 and is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Eidelberg, May 16, 2009.

Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War
by Moorthy S. Muthuswamy
Prometheus Books, 2009
ISBN-10: 1591027047

Defeating Political Islam is the title of a book written by American nuclear physicist Moorthy S. Muthuswamy, who was born in India. It is the one book Netanyahu should read before he meets Obama.

The book has been applauded by experts such as Steven Emerson, Executive Director of Investigative Project on Terrorism, Robert Spencer, Andrew G. Bostom, Bill Warner, Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam, as well as by Geert Wilders, Member of the Dutch Parliament. This is by far the best book I have read on Islam — and I have read the most eminent authors in the United States, England, and France.

It took great courage to write this book, because Dr. Muthuswamy is calling for a refutation of Islam as a religion. This is the key to overcoming Islamic imperialism and defending civilization from its most dangerous enemy. This unique book combines scholarship and practical wisdom — a wisdom sadly lacking among the political and intellectual leaders of the free world. Consider the present article a mere preface to what I hope will soon follow.

In Muthuswamy's book we can learn why peace-making with the Arab Muslims now occupying Jewish land is virtually impossible. The impossibility is inherent in the very nature of Islam, or what Dr. Muthuswamy prefers to call "political Islam." He begins on the surface and argues that jihadic organizations like Fatah and Hamas

have no vision of [economic and social] development — due to the focus on medieval sharia and jihad as the instruments of [their] internal and external policy framework ... Iran is another example of a country in which Islamists gained power through the ballot box and then pursued jihad-spreading policies.... Due to their control of the military and the mosques, the two strong institutions that would be capable of challenging them, the radicals can maintain control over the reigns of power. (pp. 40-41).

This applies to the Arab Muslims occupying Gaza as well as to those inhabiting Judea and Samaria, the so-called West Bank.

It follows from Dr. Muthuswamy's analysis that these Arab Muslims are not fit for, or worthy of, independent statehood, and it would be sheer folly and cowardice if Israel's government were to succumb to the mindless "two state solution" insisted by the Obama administration.

Even a leftist like former MK Yossi Sarid admitted that the Arabs in question do not merit statehood. Sarid had extensive experience on the Knesset Committee on Defense and Foreign Affairs. When Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait, Sarid was taken aback when Yasser Arafat, along with Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, supported the rape of Kuwait. He was all the more discomfited when Israel's own Arab citizens applauded the Iraqi dictator. In view of these embarrassing developments, he felt compelled to "reassess" his position. This he did on August 17, 1990, in an article published in Ha'aretz, Israel's elite intellectual newspaper:

The endorsement of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait by the PLO, by supposedly moderate Palestinians not affiliated with the PLO, and even by many Arabs who live inside Israel and hold Israeli citizenship has put a knife in the back of the peace process.... The PLO has dedicated the past two years to convincing Israelis and others that it has changed, that it has reconciled itself to the existence of the State of Israel and has abandoned terrorism. The PLO has kicked the bucket over.

Sarid proceeded to kick the bucket of sanity over and went on to advocate a Palestinian state!

Is this not also the case of the present Netanyahu government, except that Netanyahu, unlike Sarid, has had sixteen years of post-Oslo experience, during which the Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza have murdered some 1,700 Jews while wounding 8,000 more.

The leaders of these Arabs — contrary to Netanyahu's wealth-making approach to peace, are not primarily concerned about building the economic and social infrastructure of a Palestinian state. No, they are indoctrinating and training their children to become jihadists, as Dr. Muthuswamy indicates. And their murderous agenda has the support of an overwhelming majority of the Palestinians. He estimates that more than 50% of Islam's 1.5 billion adherents support jihad!

There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the Palestinians will metamorphose in bourgeois democrats and live in genuine and abiding peace with Israel.

I will go further. No less than Middle East expert Daniel Pipes regards the Israel-Egypt peace treaty a failure — which scotches the fancy of those who suggest that Israel now has an opportunity to forge a (reliable) alliance with Egypt vis-à-vis Iran. In his November 21, 2006 article in the New York Sun, Pipes points out that 92% percent of respondents in a poll of one thousand Egyptians over 18 years of age called Israel an enemy state. Moreover, Egypt's leading democracy movement, Kifaya, recently launched an initiative to collect a million signatures on a petition demanding the annulment of the March 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty.

So what can Prime Minister Netanyahu expect from Egypt's creation, the PLO, now called the Palestinian Authority? He should seek the advice of Dr. Muthuswamy.

Professor Paul Eidelberg is an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is the founder and president of The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. He has written on the Arab-Israel conflict and on Judaism. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 16, 2009.


Two Muslim writers in the Gulf press criticized Muslim groups in Europe for harming the West while at the same time enjoying Western freedoms and services. These are their points, boiled down.

Thousands of Muslims who fled their own, oppressive countries to the West receive asylum, work, shelter, health insurance and citizenship. The West treated the immigrants with "amazing kindness." In return, some of their sheikhs urge destruction of their new countries. Followers commit terrorism there.


The problem is that Radical Islam has "taken over the political, religious, social, and cultural life inside and outside Islamic and Arab countries and attempt to do the same with Western Muslim populations. The Radicals have been "imposing restrictions on the first generation [of immigrants], on brainwashing the second generation, and on excommunicating unions, organizations, and mosques"

The ideology of Radical Muslims, "With their books, films, and extreme separatist ideas, they have paved the way for the proliferation of different forms of extremism, and hence to overt terrorism." "The unceasing attacks on Western civilization, on man-made laws, and on Oriental studies, as well as on [what they regarded as] the cultural invasion and Western conspiracies — have made it difficult for [Muslims] to integrate into the new environment to which they migrated while hating it. [However, his integration] as far as his material interests or the aims of his party were concerned [was never impeded]."


The Muslims have "failed to see a positive side to Western society or to study Western literature, art, and culture so that it could create a model of modern culture, literature and art that combines Western and Islamic [elements]. Even the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, along with others who are proud of the Islamic civilization and profess to be heirs to the Baghdad and Andalusian civilizations — [even they], during the half century [of their sojourn] in Paris, London, or Germany, have not produced a new idea, art or culture worthy of notice..."

"True, they have established publishing houses to circulate their parties' books and publication