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

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

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, May 31, 2010.

Poppies in a spring field in the Jordan Valley

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


Anyone who observes me shooting at a simcha will often see me holding my camera hip high or resting it on a tabletop or on the floor, all while continuing to shoot the action. With automatic focus, I need only worry that my zoom is wide enough to encompass the entire subject area. A little practice makes perfect, but what I like about this technique is that the bugs-eye-view camera angle injects novelty and energy into subjects normally only seen from six feet above the ground.

To get this shot of poppies growing in the Jordan Valley, I lay down on my belly and positioned the camera on a rock about five inches off the ground. Years ago I would have ripped out the foreground grass, preferring an unblemished view to my subject. Nowadays, I prefer to leave nature alone and record everything that the camera sees. The blurred foreground — which resulted from the blades of grass rocking in the wind — adds depth to the photo and creates the painterly effect I find so pleasing in many landscapes. It really did look that way, but you can only find it by "lowering" yourself to a new standard of shooting.

Technical Data: Nikon D300, 28-105 zoom at 48 mm, f6.3 at 1/800 sec.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, May 31, 2010.

This was written by Tom Gross, who is a former Middle East correspondent for the London Sunday Telegraph and the New York Daily News. This article appeared in the National Post (UK)
(http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/25/ fancy-restaurants-and-olympic-size-pools-what-the-media- won%E2%80%99t-report-about-gaza/#ixzz0p0XIKArN).


In recent days, the international media, particularly in Europe and the Mideast, has been full of stories about "activist boats sailing to Gaza carrying desperately-needed humanitarian aid and building materials."

The BBC World Service even led its world news broadcasts with this story at one point over the weekend. (The BBC yesterday boasted that its global news audience has now risen to 220 million persons a week, making it by far the biggest news broadcaster in the world.)

Indeed the BBC and other prominent Western media regularly lead their viewers and readers astray with accounts of a non-existent "mass humanitarian catastrophe" in Gaza.

What they won't tell you about are the fancy new restaurants and swimming pools of Gaza, or about the wind surfing competitions on Gaza beaches, or the Strip's crowded shops and markets. Many Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live a middle class (and in some cases an upper class) lifestyle that western journalists refuse to report on because it doesn't fit with the simplistic story they were sent to write.

Here, courtesy of the Palestinian Ma'an news agency, is a report on Gaza's new Olympic-sized swimming pool.[1] (Most Israeli towns don't have Olympic-size swimming pools. One wonders how an area that claims to be starved of water and building materials and depends on humanitarian aid builds an Olympic size swimming pool and creates a luxury lifestyle for some while others are forced to live in abject poverty as political pawn refugees?)

If you pop into the Roots Club in Gaza, according to the Lonely Planet guidebook, you can "dine on steak au poivre and chicken cordon bleu".

The restaurant's website[2] in Arabic gives a window into middle class dining and the lifestyle of Hamas officials in Gaza. And here it is in English, for all the journalists, UN types and NGO staff who regularly frequent this and other nice Gaza restaurants (but don't tell their readers about them).

And here is a promotional video of the club[3] restaurant. In case anyone doubts the authenticity of this video, I just called the club in Gaza City and had a nice chat with the manager who proudly confirmed business is booming and many Palestinians and international guests are dining there.

In a piece[4] for The Wall Street Journal last year, I documented the "after effects" of a previous "emergency Gaza boat flotilla," when the arrivals were seen afterwards purchasing souvenirs in well-stocked shops. (You can also scroll down here[5] for more pictures of Gaza's "impoverished" shops.)

But the mainstream liberal international media won't report on any of this. Playing the manipulative game of the BBC is easy: if we had their vast taxpayer funded resources, we too could produce reports about parts of London, Manchester and Glasgow and make it look as though there is a humanitarian catastrophe throughout the UK. We could produce the same effect by selectively filming seedy parts of Paris and Rome and New York and Los Angeles too.

Of course there is poverty in Gaza. There is poverty in parts of Israel too. (When was the last time a foreign journalist based in Israel left the pampered lounge bars and restaurants of the King David and American Colony hotels in Jerusalem and went to check out the slum-like areas of southern Tel Aviv? Or the hard-hit Negev towns of Netivot or Rahat?)

But the way that many prominent Western news media are deliberately misleading global audiences and systematically creating the false impression that people are somehow starving in Gaza, and that it is all Israel's fault, can only serve to increase hatred for the Jewish state — which one suspects was the goal of many of the editors and reporters involved in the first place.


[1] http://www.maannews.net/eng/ ViewDetails.aspx?ID=285242

[2] http://www.rootsclub.ps/services-ar.php

[3] http://www.rootsclub.ps/index.php

[4] http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ mideastdispatches/archives/001072.html

[5] http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ mideastdispatches/archives/000973.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Khaled Abu Toameh, May 31, 2010.

The former PLO "ambassador" to Australia, Ali Kazak, believes that an Arab journalist who writes about financial corruption and theft in the Palestinian Authority is a "traitor" who should be murdered the same way as collaborators were killed by the French Resistance.

Kazak told the newspaper, The Australian: "Khaled Abu Toameh is a traitor. Traitors were also murdered by the French Resistance, in Europe; this happens everywhere."

Asked why he calls the journalist a traitor, the former PLO representative, who lives in Australia, explained: "Palestinians are the victims. He shouldn't write about them, he should write about the crimes of the Israelis."

Kazak's threat does not come as a surprise to those who are familiar with the methods used by Arab dictatorships to silence anyone who dares to demand reforms and transparency.

The threat reminds journalists like me how lucky we are that we live in Israel and not under the jurisdiction of the PLO or Hamas.

We are also fortunate that Kazak and his radical supporters are sitting far away in Australia and not in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where they would be lining up journalists and critics against the wall and shooting them like the "traitors who were murdered by the French Resistance."

The PLO, like most of the Arab dictatorships, has a long history of targeting journalists who refuse to "toe the line." This clampdown is one of the main reasons why the Palestinian media is still far from being independent and free.

One of the first things the PLO did when it entered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1994 was to wage a campaign of intimidation and terror against Palestinian reporters and editors.

Another photographer had his two arms broken by members of Fatah's armed wing, the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, apparently after he had been heard bad-mouthing senior officials associated with Arafat.

A photographer who took a picture of a donkey strolling along the beach of Gaza City was arrested and beaten by Palestinian security agents on charges of "defaming the Palestinian cause" by distributing a picture of the animal instead of documenting the "suffering" of his people.

A newspaper editor who failed to publish a story about Yasser Arafat on the front page of his newspaper found himself thrown into a Jericho prison for a week.

The offices of a newspaper in east Jerusalem were torched after the editor published an editorial denouncing financial corruption in the Palestinian Authority.

The director-general of the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation was gunned down in Gaza City, and it's widely believed that Arafat had ordered the assassination.

Earlier this year, the Palestinian Authority leadership instructed all Palestinian journalists and editors to refrain from publishing allegations of rampant corruption made by Fahmi Shabaneh, the former head of the anti-corruption department in the Palestinian security forces.

The absence of a free and independent media in the Palestinian territories has driven many Palestinians to seek work in the Western media, including Israeli newspapers and radio and TV stations.

But Kazak thinks that it is not enough that these journalists have been forced out of their own media. Now he wants to see them being murdered for working for writing about one of the most significant problem facing the Palestinians: financial corruption and bad government.

Kazak needs to be reminded that the party he claims to represent lost the January 2006 parliamentary election largely due to its failure to combat corruption.

The real traitors are those who established another corrupt dictatorship in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and stole billions of dollars of international aid that was supposed to improve the living conditions of their people.

The real traitors are those who built a casino for the Palestinians instead of building them a hospital and a school.

The real traitors are those who are trying to silence journalists and reformists who want to see a better life for their people.

Khaled Abu Toameh is a writer for the Jerusalem Post. He is also with the Hudson Institute-New York). Hudson. This article is archived at
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1343/ the-palestinians-the-real-traitors

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, May 31, 2010.

The convoy of ships allegedly trying to bring aid to the Gaza Strip was organized by a group belonging to an officially designated terrorist organization.

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That's because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA's radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda. French magistrate Jean-Louis Brougiere also testified that IHH had an "important role" in Ahmed Ressam's failed "millennium plot" to bomb the Los Angeles airport in late 1999.

The U.S. government, it should be noted, also views the Union of Good as a terrorist organization. On November 12, 2008, a press release from the U.S. Treasury announced the umbrella group's leaders as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT), stating that the group was "created by Hamas leadership to transfer funds to the terrorist organization."

"Terrorist groups such as Hamas continue to exploit charities to radicalize vulnerable communities and cultivate support for their violent activities," said Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey.

According to Treasury, Hamas's leadership actually created the Union of Good in 2000 — just after the launch of the armed campaign against Israel — as a means to transfer funds to Hamas. At the time of designation in 2008, the Treasury believed that the Union of Good was transferring "tens of millions of dollars a year" to Hamas-controlled entities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

As the Treasury release explained, "The Union of Good acts as a broker for Hamas by facilitating financial transfers between a web of charitable organizations — including several organizations previously designated... for providing support to Hamas — and Hamas-controlled organizations in the West Bank and Gaza. The primary purpose of this activity is to strengthen Hamas' political and military position in the West Bank and Gaza."

It gets worse. The Treasury, drawing from declassified documents, stated unequivocally that the Union of Good "compensated Hamas terrorists by providing payments to the families of suicide bombers. One of [the charities], the Al-Salah Society, previously identified as a key support node for Hamas, was designated in August 2007... The Society employed a number of members of the Hamas military wing and supported Hamas-affiliated combatants during the first Intifada."

Then there's the leadership. Apart from the aforementioned Qardawi, Union of Good's top officials include Hamas members, as well as Yemeni national Abd al-Majid al-Zindani, who was designated by the U.S. Treasury as a terrorist in 2004 for providing support to al Qaeda.

Thus, the convoy of ships allegedly trying to bring aid to the Gaza Strip could never be characterized as a "peace flotilla." With ties to Hamas and other dangers groups, the IHH can only be described as a dangerous organization. Its members only underscored this fact when they attacked Israeli naval personnel with iron bars and knives, ultimately leading to the regrettable deaths this morning on the Mediterranean Sea.

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

This article appeared today in The Weekly Standard (online).

To Go To Top

Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, May 31, 2010.

This was written by Omri Ceren (omri@cjhsla.org).


Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors is calling on the Obama administration to demand answers from the government of Turkey regarding Ankara's role in supplying the Gaza Flotilla that yesterday violently clashed with America's ally Israel.

The group of six ships departed from Turkey and attempted to violate Israel's internationally-recognized blockade on the Gaza Strip, the territory controlled by Iranian-backed Hamas Islamists who have repeatedly pledged to wipe out the Jewish State. Israel offered to allow the group to unload its ostensibly humanitarian cargo at the Israeli port of Ashdod, after which the goods would be inspected for weapons and sent to Gaza via overland routes. When the fleet explicitly declared its intention to run the blockade, they were intercepted and stopped by the Israeli Navy.

The ostensibly non-violent group of activists and militants then attacked the Israelis with knives and clubs, stabbing at least one soldier in the stomach. A firefight erupted after the gun of another Israeli soldier was torn from his hands and turned on the rest of the Israeli contingent. As of this morning dozens are reported wounded or killed, from both sides.

"Turkey is supposed to be one of our NATO allies, and President Obama has gone out of his way not to offend the Turkish people or the Erdogan government," said Doris Montrose, President and founder of the Los Angeles-based non-profit. "But here we have Turkey inciting anti-Israel violence, supplying anti-Israel thugs, and then spearheading an international campaign to completely delegitimize the Jewish State."

Montrose added: "now is not the time for the White House's famed delicate touch, which has already pushed Turkey into the Iranian orbit and away from America and the West. Over the last year we've seen an erosion of US power and influence across the Middle East, not least of all because this administration refuses to back our actual allies and call out our genuine enemies."

"Turkey's ambassador recently returned to DC after a month-long snit over the House's Armenian genocide resolution. If President Obama is truly a friend of Israel, the Ambassador will be spending today providing 'clarifications' as to why his government is providing succor to genocidal enemies of our ally Israel."

CJHS grounds its mission in the core insistence that the last Holocaust imposes upon all people of good will a moral and political imperative to prevent the next one. It works to bring public awareness to the diplomatic, geopolitical, and military dynamics that threaten the American way of life, the existence of the Jewish State, and the freedom of all Westerners. Find out more at www.cjhsla.org.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, May 31, 2010.

To: CNN International Online News Editor

Leave it to CNN to commit agit-prop on behalf of the arab invaders. We fault Ted Turner and his poodle, Jimmy Carter, for fomenting war in the Middle East.

You men DO know better than to scapegoat Israel while burying the crimes of your dear Saudi/UAE operatives under a cloak of Ted Turner's lies.

You should understand that all decent people hold your editors and publishers responsible for the crimes committed by that thankfully dead Egyptian terrorist — Yasser Arafat — who was lionized by his poodle and your mouth-piece, Christianne Amanpour.

We know the law, thanks to Prof. Howard Grief, and we support Israel should it succeed in retrieving all the land you people helped the Britz and their arabists steal from Jewish Palestine. And yes, we are proof that one need not be Jewish to support Israel. We are the Secular Christians for Zion and we say: Decent people want to know how Ireland would respond were it attacked by a flotilla of pothead-insurrectionists and known terrorists such as those attempting to attack Israel. Israel is in the right and a thousand euroid complaints cannot prove it wrong. These swinish invaders should be repeatedly reminded how much they deserve the very same fate urged for Jews by that thankfully-dead bloody Egyptian terrorist, Yasser Arafat.

The law in on Israel's side. Israel has every right to retake Gaza despite Olmert's dreadful faux pas. BTW — Suha Arafat would make great fish bait. Is she aboard?

Victoire and the SC4Z

To: Editor, USA Today


Your reporting about the so-called 'aid' to Gaza invasion is utterly shameful. We ask you to carefully study what Ireland would do were it invaded by British NGOs intent on using charity as a cover for attacking Irish women and children. What would Ireland do? Study that! Now consider what Bahrain would do were it invaded by Iranian NGOs professing to bring aid to its indentured foreign servants. What would Bahrain do? Study that!

The most productive thing you could do for world peace is to study Prof. Howard Grief's seminal treatise on international law. The title of his book is: A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty over the Land of Israel — The Legal Foundation and Borders of israel under International Law.

The Boundaries agreed to per the San Remo Resolution still hold and the US and Europe remain bound by international law to aid and support Israel and help Israel restore the lands of Israel (then commonly known as Jewish Palestine) that are encompassed by the boundaries established in 1920. These regions consist of what the British press calls the Gaza Strip; they include most of the Golan Heights, and all of the land you people wrongly refer to as "the West Bank" — and most what later became the new state of Jordan. Now, doesn't this help you understand why the arabs are desperate to go on the offensive and to do so thru false propaganda, invasion, and concerted lies? Doesn't this help you understand why the arab states multiply like cancer cells in order to rule UN policy-making? Doesn't this help you understand why the Saudis purchased controlling shares in Time Warner and other US media outlets?

It makes not one whit of difference that the British gave the lands of Jewish Palestine to the Hashemite royals. Their acts can be set aside because they acted beyond their authority. They are ultra vires ab initio. That is, irremediably Illegal. What they did is not legally binding. In fact, whoever sponsored the divestment of Israel's lands could and should be prosecuted for violating international law. The lands wrongly severed from israel must either be restored to Israel, or else, if Israel agrees, confirmed by proper procedure to the arabs currently occupying the new state of Jordan — arabs who were allowed to call themselves 'palestinian' not only by the self-serving Saudis (who gifted millions to certain well known members of the US State Dept. to conspire with the arab invaders to violate international law) but by the British as well, who use carefully crafted propaganda to conceal their criminal activities during their mandate over the region that encompassed the Jewish Homeland, then known as Palestine.

Ask yourselves what would happen should Saudi Arabia succeed in in quest to destroy Israel and seize control over Israel's land. Do you suppose the French would sit idly by? Or would they continue to nudge the US out of the Mediterranean and Europe and move in to fill the void with the French military-industrial complex. Ever consider that? Or the conflict that would arise between the UK and France?

Ever since the Clinton Administration sponsored the consolidation of the US media, our news reports have been filtered by Reuters and the Associated Press and twisted and shaped and massaged to serve the political ambitions of the few (most of them foreign) at the expense of the American taxpayer who has been forced by the follies of the US State Dept. to underwrite America's destruction. We already have BHusseinO telling us that we should accept that the US will eventually become a second-rate "power". How prescient of him!

We are taking note of Israel's valiant defense against the concerted thievery sponsored by the UN because we just might have to emulate Israel should your misbegotten editorials incite an "NGO" invasion of the US of A. If that sorry day comes to pass, you people will be worth less than the rats who crawl to the top of the rigging while their ships sinks due to the holes they chewed in the hull.

Viva Israel from the Secular Christians for Zion.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, May 31, 2010.

This was written by Bernard-Henri Levy. It appeared today in Ynet and is archived at


At Tel Aviv conference, Jewish-French philosopher lauds IDF morals, calls Israel 'island of democracy where dictatorships rule'.

Referring to the IDF, Jewish-French writer and philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy said, "Much can and should be learned from Israel."

Addressing the French-Israeli conference on democracy in Tel Aviv Sunday, Levy said, "I've covered many wars, and I've never seen an army that asks itself so many questions related to morals."

As for Israel's status in the international community, the French philosopher said, "There is a demonization campaign against Israel all over the world.

"In a region where dictatorships and truly fascist regimes rule, Israel represents an island of democracy. Zionism is the only movement that has not failed and turned into a caricature. It is the only movement that has preserved its spirit," he told the conference.

"Israel is a miracle because since its inception it has been in a constant state of war, yet it never gave up on the democratic values at its core," according to Levy.

He added, "Democracy was created (in Israel) out of nothing. People had no experience in democracy, but through willpower and a miracle, they invented a functioning democracy. Israel is proof that democracy does not require time. In France a newspaper was shut down every two weeks during the war in Algeria."

Levy also praised the Israeli government's treatment of the Arab minority during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, adding that Arab-Israel villages he had visited during the war "were on the brink of explosion."

"I am not certain that (governments in other countries) would have acted the same. I remember a terrible atmosphere and my admiration of the Israeli authorities' level-headed conduct. Israel represents a secular miracle," he said.

The renowned philosopher also said democracy was a Jewish idea. "The Talmud is democracy in practice. The Jewish nation invented the notion that the truth lies in the most heated argument," he said.

Editor's Note:

I hope this article represents how Levy thinks. He has endorsed the JCall anti-Israel campaign. And, as a reader pointed out:

Henri Levy signed a petition asking Europe to pressure Israel! He thinks our government democratically elected is too rightist, so he tryed to undermine it by influencing Europe to govern us !

I am fed up with those Diaspora Jews who live comfortably far from Israel and tell US what to do! The guy is an hypocrite! He praise Israel democracy and in the same time wants Europe to put its noise in Israel internal problems!

Europe, as if they could give us lessons aftewr the Shoah!

Levy is a moral coward, only able to be PC, he is for a palestinian State, which means he supports kicking 300000 Israelis from their houses...Disgusting!

Eric, Mevasseret Zion (05.31.10)

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 Arlene Kushner, May 31, 2010.

It was inevitable, as things were going with the "flotilla" — for us there was no choice. And so I am enormously grateful that we stood our ground. Had we backed down in the face of extreme provocation that ultimately became physical attack, it would have been horrendous.

A summary of events:

Six boats were in the flotilla — two carried people and the rest supplies. During the night our Navy sent them multiple messages urging that confrontation be avoided. They were asked to return to Cyprus or re-route to Ashdod for unloading of the humanitarian supplies, but the "activists" on board rejected all offers. One boat — the Marma — carrying 600 people, was most problematic in its response.

Yesterday, Al Jazeerah documented the cries of people on that boat:

"Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!"

Explains Palestinian Media Watch, this is a reference to "Khaibar...the last Jewish village defeated by Muhammad's army in 628. Many Jews were killed in that battle, which marked the end of Jewish presence in Arabia. There are Muslims who see that as a precursor for future wars against Jews. At gatherings and rallies of extremists, this chant is often heard as a threat to Jews to expect to be defeated and killed again by Muslims."

PMW put out the Al Jazeerah video report on its website:
http://palwatch.org:80/main.aspx?fi=676&fld_id= 676&doc_id=2337

See it, please! Save it and share it very broadly. It tells the story of what we faced more vividly than anything else.

Most incredible was the statement of one Arab woman present:

"Right now we face one of two happy endings: either Martyrdom or reaching Gaza."

Hardly the statement of a humanitarian activist eager to supply food to hungry Gazans. This is the statement of a jihad extremist. Make no mistake about it.


At about 3 AM, Navy commandos, trained and prepared for this, boarded the boat. They were met with premeditated violence. The IDF called it an attempted lynching. Those on board had weapons — guns, knives, iron bars, bats, clubs, slingshots with marbles — and attacked. In two instances, "peaceful activists" pulled the guns from our soldiers and began shooting. One soldier was beaten to the floor of the ship and pummeled, another was knifed in the stomach.

As chaos ensued, our soldiers had no choice but to respond with fire — something they had hoped to avoid doing. In light of the circumstances, their response was controlled, and they have since been praised by their superiors for their proper action. In the end, seven of our soldiers were wounded, two seriously. Some ten people on the boat were killed. I have no information on who they were, but there was a large contingent of Turks among these fighters — the Turks, after all, were instrumental in the planning of this flotilla.


"Live fire was used against our forces. They initiated the violence, that's 100% clear," said Mark Regev, spokesman for the Prime Minister's office.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak expressed regret for the loss of life, but said that the flotilla was a provocation sponsored by extremists who support a terrorist organization.

Indeed this is the case: The flotilla was organized by IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi - "humanitarian relief fund"), a Turkish aid foundation which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and global jihadi networks, as well as mujahideen groups in Afghanistan. It openly supports Hamas; members of Hamas had boarded boats at the Gaza coast and were waiting to "receive" the flotilla.


At his press conference this morning, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said:

"I want to report this morning that the armada of hate and violence in support of the Hamas terror organization was a premeditated and outrageous provocation. The organizers are well known for their ties with global Jihad, Al-Qaeda and Hamas. They have a history of arms smuggling and deadly terror. On board the ship we found weapons — prepared in advance and used against our forces.

"The organizers' intent was violent, their method was violent, and the results were unfortunately violent. Israel regrets any loss of life and did everything to avoid this outcome. We repeatedly called upon the organizers, and all those who associated with them, through diplomatic channels and any other means we could — to stop this provocation. The so-called humanitarian aid was not for a humanitarian purpose. Had it been for a humanitarian purpose, they would have accepted our offer to deliver all humanitarian supplies through the appropriate channels which are used on a daily basis, as we make sure that Gaza will not be short of humanitarian supplies. On a daily basis we do that...

"We asked them to send [their supplies] through the proper channels, whether it's the UN, whether it's the Red Cross, whether it's our people — but to no avail. They said it's a humanitarian campaign, but in fact what they said repeatedly is that their intent and purpose was to break the maritime blockade on Gaza. [The blockade] is very legal and justified by the terror that Hamas is applying in Gaza. Allowing these ships to go in a illegal way to Gaza would have opened a corridor of smuggling arms and terrorists to Gaza with the inevitable results of many, many thousands of civilian deaths, and violence all over the area. (Emphasis added)

"After these repeated calls were not heeded by the organizers, we told them that they will not be allowed to break the blockade. According to maritime law we have the right to do that. Unfortunately the people and organizers on the ship did not heed the calls of our forces this morning to peacefully follow them and bring a peaceful closure to this event. (Emphasis added)

"No sovereign country would tolerate such violence against civilian population, against its sovereignty, against international law. And we in Israel call today upon all relevant parties and on all relevant countries to work together in calming the situation."


Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, on TV this evening, said, "Israel is a sovereign state and cannot accept the undermining of its sovereignty. Israel has stopped ships in international waters before and when ships refuse to accede to warnings and obey instructions, we have the right to board them under international law." (emphasis added) Additionally, he noted that passengers on board the ship "were not peace activists but terror supporters."


Prime Minister Netanyahu, who was in Canada when this transpired, is on his way home. He has communicated to President Obama the impossibility of meeting him right now.

Said Netanyahu, "Our soldiers acted in self defense":

"I think both Prime Minister Harper and President Obama understand that Israel has a great security problem and I want to put that into context. The context is that Gaza has become a base for Hamas terrorists backed by Iran. They have fired thousands of rockets into Israel. They are amassing thousands more rockets to fire at our cities, at our towns, at our children.

"...our policy is this — we try to let in all humanitarian goods into Gaza, all peaceful commodities, food, medicine, and the like. What we want to prevent coming into Gaza are rockets, missiles, explosives and war materials that could be used to attack our civilians. This is an ongoing policy and it was the one that guided our action yesterday. We told the flotilla of ships, we said, 'You can take all your cargo, put it in our port of Ashdod, we'll just ferret out if there are any war materials, and the rest will go through.'

"We succeeded in doing this peacefully with five of the six ships. The sixth ship, the largest, which had hundreds of people on it, not only did not cooperate in this effort peacefully, they deliberately attacked the first soldiers who came on the ship. They were mobbed, they were clubbed, they were beaten, stabbed, there was even a report of gunfire. And our soldiers had to defend themselves, defend their lives, or they would have been killed."


The ships have been brought to Ashdod. The "activists" will be either deported or arrested, and the wounded will be treated. The cargo of the ships will be unloaded and examined, and genuine humanitarian aid will be sent through crossings to the people of Gaza.

Undoubtedly I will have more on this tomorrow.


What is of enormous significance now is that each of you reading this should understand precisely what went on, what the true motivations and actions of those on the ship were — and what Israel's concerns and rights in the matter are.

That we are going to take heat, big-time, is a given now. We'll hear, of course, from Turkey, the UN, Arab nations, etc., and likely some European nations as well.

Each of us best serves Israel now by spreading this information at every turn, as broadly as you possibly can. I think you have what you need with the information above. Please use it.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ron Mossad, May 31, 2010.

Do NOT believe the hype. This was NOT a "peace mission" by any stretch of the imagination. Please send out this video: ronmossad.cnn.10dead."

Please share with your friends/readers as we can be sure that all of us are going to get angry questions from the misinformed public.


10 dead as Israeli forces storm "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" after soldier stabbed by peace activist

Here's a great idea, why doesn't Turkey send a bunch of angry, Israel-hating "peace-activists" — armed with knives, axes and cudgels — to force a confrontation with the Israeli Coast Guard in what they bill as a "humanitarian mission" to break the "seige" of Gaza.

What could go wrong?

From CNN:

(CNN) — International condemnation poured in Monday after Israeli soldiers stormed a flotilla of ships carrying aid intended for Palestinians in Gaza, leaving at least 10 people dead in the resulting violence.

Israel claimed it was defending itself, with the Israel Defense Forces saying the soldiers' lives were in danger after they were attacked with "severe physical violence, including live fire, weapons, knives and clubs."


Let's see...

More negative PR for Israel? Check.

Jews supporting their enemies, thereby contributing to their own demise? Check.

Demands from Hamas terrorists that the world rally to support their extremist dictatorship that steals from its own population and conducts attacks where it deliberately murders Israeli and Palestinian civilians? THAT'S a big check!

European rush to support these terrorists and prove yet again they learned nothing in the 40's by blaming the Jews as usual? Chickity check check check!

Angry protests from clueless college students? Oh wait, nevermind it's Memorial Day — they're all at the beach or still drunk from the night before!

You'll notice by the way that the CNN article I quoted didn't mention anything about the Israeli soldier being stabbed repeatedly by one of these idiots, only this "Israeli military version" (Translation: PROPAGANDA) that included one quote and 2 out of 7 paragraphs talked about the dead activists and THEIR side of the account. Apparently CNN doesn't have anyone that watches the news in Israel because the stabbing was all over the place this morning over there.

The video, short as it may be actually tells us a lot about the incident. Aside from the fact that this guy stabs the soldier what seems like 100 times you'll notice that there was no gun being fired and the stabber had enough freedom of movement to get behind the soldier in order to stab him. This suggests one of two things:

1. This happened AFTER the initial raid/attack by the Israeli military during which, after opening fire on the ship, they inexplicably did not restrain and subdue the crew and passengers nor did they apparently search them for massive daggers before turning their backs to them. For this scenario to be accurate, the stabber would have witnessed at least some of his friends being shot and still decided to forfeit his life by attempting to single-handedly defeat a heavily-armed commando unit with nothing more than a knife of his own.


2. The stabbing occurred BEFORE the Israelis opened fire, which is what prompted the soldiers — who no doubt had been taunted and threatened endlessly by the "peace activists" before boarding — to open fire in self defense.

Flotilla "Peace Activist" (photo from jpost.com)

My guess is that it's option 2.

Oh what's that you say, you're still unconvinced? Just WAIT — there's more!

Here IS ACTUAL VIDEO from the time the FIRST SOLDIER was lowered onto the ship:

You can see VERY CLEARLY that as SOON as the commando rappels down from the helicopter he is IMMEDIATELY surrounded and attacked in what several of the Israelis who were part of the operation referred to as a "lynching" — going so far as to compare it to the Ramallah lynching of two Israelis in 2000.

Furthermore, the Israeli Navy warned the flotilla to turn around — going to far as to offer an escort to the Israeli port city of Ashdod where they would be allowed to offload their materials and deliver them to Gaza by land as literally hundreds of thousands of tons of aid have been delivered in the past three years. In fact, after the commando operation — that's EXACTLY what happened. Oh and I should also add that along with Israelis injured in the attack, their enemies who attacked them were ALSO airlifted to Israeli hospitals and treated by the same doctors who treated the soldiers. And the IDF is barbaric?! Unbelievable!

This whole mess could have been avoided if the goal of this "peace" mission was to actually deliver goods to starving Palestinian children and the organizers had followed established protocol that is there to ensure that weapons are not delivered to people who try to kill Jewish civilians every day.

But you see, this was no "peace" mission. It was a trap for the Israelis.

Once more the "plight of the Palestinians" has been used to delegitimize Israel and support terrorism.

And you're all falling for it.


More coming in now from eyewitness accounts embedded with the Israeli commando unit — definitely mirrors what we saw in the second video.

From the YNet:

Navy commandoes slid down to the vessel one by one, yet then the unexpected occurred: The passengers that awaited them on the deck pulled out bats, clubs, and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked. The fighters were nabbed one by one and were beaten up badly, yet they attempted to fight back.

However, to their misfortune, they were primarily equipped with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests, such as the ones held in Bilin. The paintballs obviously made no impression on the activists, who kept on beating the troops up and even attempted to wrest away their weapons.

One soldier who came to the aid of a comrade was captured by the rioters and sustained severe blows. The commandoes were equipped with handguns but were told they should only use them in the face of life-threatening situations. When they came down from the chopper, they kept on shouting to each other “don’t shoot, don’t shoot,” even though they sustained numerous blows.

Paintball rifles!! You have to read the rest of that article, it's shocking.


More footage now of "peace activists" beating the Israelis as they are first rappelling down to the ship.

Again, please note that this is PRIOR to any shots being fired.


More video of the "peace activists" emerging from even before any encounter with the Israeli Navy shows what is basically a Hamas terrorist rally happening right on the boats.

Martyrdom, the "army of Muhammad" — wow these guys are just the pinnacle of peaceful coexistence.

How are we letting the media spin this the way they are?!


One of the assertions all over the media is that because this raid occurred in international waters it somehow illegitimate or worse an act of "piracy." As if. Unfortunately for the Gaza Flotilla supporters, the ACTUAL laws of international waterways do not support this AT ALL. Also unfortunate for them is that Yaakov over at newsvine.com has entirely dispelled this myth that Israel had no right to do what it did based on the location of the boats. From the article:

I direct your attention to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. Specifically, paragraph 67-68:

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

Hmmmm. Breaching a blockade? Refusing to stop after being warned prior? Resisting visit, search or capture? I'm not international law expert, but would you say that based on what we saw in the videos above that the actions of the people on the boat would constitute "clearly resisting" a search??

Based on the law, Israel would have not only been justified in boarding the ship which was CLEARLY suspected on reasonable grounds of carrying contraband (being that they refused inspection by the nation that still maintains responsibility for the territory they sought to enter), they would have actually been justified in attacking the ships and sinking them entirely. It is only because they showed immense restraint that no other country ever would that this did not happen. And yet, we are allowing ourselves to be painted as aggressors, as oppressors and as persecutors when it is we who are actually being persecuted.

The fact that I have to contend with JEWS who parrot these ridiculous assertions just shows you how deeply ingrained our need to self-deprecate in order to please our not-so-gracious host countries really is. Disgraceful to say the least.

Contact Ron Mossad by email at ronmossad@gmail.com and visit the website: www.ronmossad.blogspot.com

To Go To Top

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


More than a hundred governments and NGOs are meeting to consider expanding international law. Chief topic is whether to give the International Criminal Court power to prosecute "aggression" as a crime. That would add to the Court's power to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Would this new rule outlaw pre-emptive strikes for defense, or just invasions? Some governments are afraid that the court would enter a morass of politics. Members of the Security Council fear this change would dilute the Council. Another objection is that the Court, which started in 2002, has heard only 2 cases so far. Let it consolidate its ability to handle what already is in its jurisdiction. Temporary tribunals have handled cases that otherwise might have been handled by the Court. A great difficulty would lay in defining aggression, which a previous attempt failed to do.

Another proposal is to ban weapons that cause more suffering than other weapons, in domestic problems and crowd control (Marlise Simons, New York Times, 5/31, A7).

Other difficulties of such a proposal are that the world is polarized ideologically and politically. Some ideologies are unfair and dishonest. For example, the Arabs consider Israel's self-defense "aggression" and Arab aggression "self-defense." For reasons of economics, ideology, politics, and prejudice, people went along with the Goldstone report. The report turned reality upside down, as my articles have demonstrated.

Like the UN, itself, an international court cannot be trusted. Liberals need to learn that just wanting a law to accomplish a certain result does not by itself accomplish it. Laws have unintended consequences. Implementation can be unfair.


Israelis were polled about the continued digging of tunnels in Gaza, for the purpose of infiltrating terrorists into Israel.

People were asked whether they approve of: (1) Existing IDF policy of noting the location of such tunnels and bombing them only as retaliation after terrorists have fired rockets into Israel; or (2) Send in forces to destroy all such tunnels and make known that hereafter, they will be destroyed as soon as identified.

20% chose (1) and 67% chose (2) (IMRA, 5/30).


Highway 443 and protester (AP/Bernat Armangue)

Controversial Highway 443 re-opened to Arab traffic. People expected traffic jams. There was little Arab traffic. Just 13 cars tried to use it. There were more reporters and Israeli soldiers than Arabs in the cars.

Arabs said that it didn't pay to wait to be inspected and use the few kilometers available, only to be diverted off it before they could reach their destination. The first one using it complained at being inspected, though terrorists have mingled with the general public before, on that highway IMRA, 5/30).

Between the court's sympathy for Arab travelers and the government's need to protect against terrorism, the change appears to have been minor. It was not the great reform hailed by the plaintiffs.


Daniel Pipes reviews three years of polls of U.S. standing among Arabs and Americans. Obama entered office with high hopes of winning Arab approval. His ratings have risen and then fallen. The most recent poll confirms a downward trend, though opinion in Egypt, on that downward slant, still is higher than it was in 2008.

In Egypt, it still is 69%. In four other Arab areas, it varies from 16% to 30% (5/29/10)

During the election campaign, Democrats complained most of all about foreign disapproval of the U.S.. They anticipated that Obama would reverse it. Apparently, his appeasement just forfeits both foreign respect and American interests.


The flotilla announced that it would be holding a ceremony commemorating the controversial Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, which had entered a war zone and which Israel claimed to have attacked by mistake.

The flotilla did not announce a ceremony commemorating the clear-cut Arab attack on the U.S.S. Cole, U.S. or the World Trade Center (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/30/10).

You can see that the announcement (by people not known for sympathy for the U.S.) is anti-Israel propaganda. It helps turn the flotilla is a dangerous circus.

Some of the comments on my prior articles took too seriously the flotilla contention that it was humanitarian and necessary. They missed the points made that terrorists were participating and even sponsoring the flotilla, and that they could have delivered the goods the way other such goods enter, without risking people's lives.

Those readers failed to ask what kind of humanitarians work with terrorists, who are the most inhumane people.

(For pre-clash articles on flotilla, click here.)

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

To Go To Top

Posted by The Israel Project, May 31, 2010.

Below is an article by Israeli journalist Ron Ben Yishai for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot in which he provides a first hand account of the Israeli operation to take control of the Turkish-led flotilla. The Israel Project hopes you find this of interest.

Ron Ben Yishai recounts bloody clash aboard Gaza-bound vessel: The lacking crowd-dispersal means, the brutal violence of 'peace activists,' and the attempt to bring down an IDF helicopter

Ben Yishai, Ron, "A Brutal Ambush at Sea," YnetNews, May 31, 2010,


Our Navy commandoes fell right into the hands of the Gaza mission members.

A few minutes before the takeover attempt aboard the Marmara got underway, the operation commander was told that 20 people were waiting on the deck where a helicopter was to deploy the first team of the elite Flotilla 13 unit. The original plan was to disembark on the top deck, and from there rush to the vessel's bridge and order the Marmara's captain to stop.

Officials estimated that passengers will show slight resistance, and possibly minor violence; for that reason, the operation's commander decided to bring the helicopter directly above the top deck. The first rope that soldiers used in order to descend down to the ship was wrested away by activists, most of them Turks, and tied to an antenna with the hopes of bringing the chopper down. However, Flotilla 13 fighters decided to carry on.

Navy commandoes slid down to the vessel one by one, yet then the unexpected occurred: The passengers that awaited them on the deck pulled out bats, clubs, and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked. The fighters were nabbed one by one and were beaten up badly, yet they attempted to fight back.

However, to their misfortune, they were primarily equipped with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests, such as the ones held in Bilin. The paintballs obviously made no impression on the activists, who kept on beating the troops up and even attempted to wrest away their weapons.

One soldier who came to the aid of a comrade was captured by the rioters and sustained severe blows. The commandoes were equipped with handguns but were told they should only use them in the face of life-threatening situations. When they came down from the chopper, they kept on shouting to each other "don't shoot, don't shoot," even though they sustained numerous blows.

'I saw the tip of a rifle'

The Navy commandoes were prepared to mostly encounter political activists seeking to hold a protest, rather than trained street fighters. The soldiers were told they were to verbally convince activists who offer resistance to give up, and only then use paintballs. They were permitted to use their handguns only under extreme circumstances.

The planned rush towards the vessel's bridge became impossible, even when a second chopper was brought in with another crew of soldiers. "Throw stun grenades," shouted Flotilla 13's commander who monitored the operation. The Navy chief was not too far, on board a speedboat belonging to Flotilla 13, along with forces who attempted to climb into the back of the ship.

The forces hurled stun grenades, yet the rioters on the top deck, whose number swelled up to 30 by that time, kept on beating up about 30 commandoes who kept gliding their way one by one from the helicopter. At one point, the attackers nabbed one commando, wrested away his handgun, and threw him down from the top deck to the lower deck, 30 feet below. The soldier sustained a serious head wound and lost his consciousness.

Only after this injury did Flotilla 13 troops ask for permission to use live fire. The commander approved it: You can go ahead and fire. The soldiers pulled out their handguns and started shooting at the rioters' legs, a move that ultimately neutralized them. Meanwhile, the rioters started to fire back at the commandoes.

"I saw the tip of a rifle sticking out of the stairwell," one commando said. "He fired at us and we fired back. We didn't see if we hit him. We looked for him later but couldn't find him." Two soldiers sustained gunshot wounds to their knee and stomach after rioters apparently fired at them using guns wrested away from troops.

Two errors

During the commotion, another commando was stabbed with a knife. In a later search aboard the Marmara, soldiers found caches of bats, clubs, knives, and slingshots used by the rioters ahead of the IDF takeover. It appeared the activists were well prepared for a fight.

Some passengers on the ship stood at the back and pounded the soldiers' hands as they attempted to climb on board. Only after a 30-minute shootout and brutal assaults using clubs and knifes did commandoes manage to reach the bridge and take over the Marmara.

It appears that the error in planning the operation was the estimate that passengers were indeed political activists and members of humanitarian groups who seek a political provocation, but would not resort to brutal violence. The soldiers thought they will encounter Bilin-style violence; instead, they got Bangkok. The forces that disembarked from the helicopters were few; just dozens of troops — not enough to contend with the large group awaiting them.

The second error was that commanders did not address seriously enough the fact that a group of men were expecting the soldiers on the top deck. Had they addressed this more seriously, they may have hurled tear-gas grenades and smoke grenades from the helicopter to create a screen that would have enabled them to carry out their mission, without the fighters falling right into the hands of the rioters, who severely assaulted them.

Editor's Note

The IDF ordered the boats to sail to Askelon, where the goods that were not military and terrorist material would be trucked to Gaza. Israel trucks tons of food, etc., to Gaza daily. In other words, after the 200 tons of weapons that were later found by the IDF were confiscated, the humitarian aspects would not have been stopped.

All but one ship obeyed. The "activists" on board the Mavi Marmara attacked with knifes, metal rods, broken bottles and guns. See videos of the "humitarians" preparing for the IDF boarding here.

The only point in favor of the Turks appeared to be that the IDF mounted the boat in international waters. However, as one reader, Martin R, pointed out, there's:

"Nothing illegal about this in International law!:

"According to the San Remo Manual that governs international humanitarian law, it is permissible under rule 67(a) to attack neutral vessels on the high seas when the vessels "are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture."

Any more doubts about the IDF's legal standing?

To contact The Israel Project: write Marcus Sheff at marcuss@theisraelproject.org or Leah Soibel leahs@theisraelproject.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Feiglin, May 31, 2010.

Do you remember the gallant rapist? The criminal who would offer his victims a ride home after the rape? He apparently thought that his "good manners" would make his crime seem less reprehensible. In the end he was apprehended and sentenced like all the other rapists.

Today, Israel is the gallant rapist. We declared to the entire world that Gaza is not ours, but theirs. The world was not particularly convinced, so we expelled all the Jews from Gush Katif in Gaza and destroyed their homes. We even dug up their dead for reburial "inside Israel." Let there be no mistake, dear world, Gaza is not ours. Look, we have even retreated from there — with sensitivity and determination, of course.

Now, the world is convinced. Gaza is really not ours. But just a minute: If Gaza is not really yours, why are you blockading it from the sea and the air, allowing entry only from your territory following your security checks? What are you trying to do? To gallantly rape the "Palestinians" and convince us that they consent?

If Gaza is yours — stay there and fight! If it is not yours, get out of there and do not interfere in their lives! You can't do both. You can't simultaneously rape and be well-mannered. Oh, you say that they are trying to smuggle weapons into Gaza? Well, what's the problem with that? Who are you to tell them what to bring into their territory? Aren't you constantly arming yourselves as you please? If the state of Gaza will declare war on you, then defend yourselves. But don't tell us that you left while you are still ruling there by remote control. What right do you have to prevent them from building their own army?

What? They actually did start a war and they are constantly shooting at you? OK, then re-conquer Gaza and administer a military government, like the Allies did in Germany. What? That's impossible because you convinced your citizens that it is good to disengage from Gaza? Hmmm.

We tried to fool the world, and first and foremost — ourselves. Now the entire house of cards is collapsing on our heads. The question is not who is more well mannered, us or them. The question is not how much violence was used to stop the flotilla. The question is who is the rapist. The question is who is just, who is the good-guy and who is the bad-guy in this story. Israel in flight from its identity lost justification for its existence — not just in the Land of Israel but on the face of the entire globe. It maneuvered itself into the position of the most despised nation on earth. Achmadinijad can travel Europe freely. Tzippy Livni and Bogi Ya'alon dare not land there.

If we would have adopted the stance of the just, we could have acted according to the maritime international laws that were determined by Great Britain when it ruled the seas. Call to stop. First shell in front of the ship's nose. Second shell into the ship, and the story is over. But this law is for legitimate ships, not pirate ships, like us. It will not help us to base our justness on good manners. We will always turn out to be rapists in the end. It won't work even if we enlist the most professional soldiers in the world for the mission.

"I don't see Israel as a Jewish state, but rather as a state of all its citizens," said former Chief Justice Aharon Barak, and we lost the most important weapon of all — our sense of justice. The problem is that the other side did not lose its sense of justice. For the Arabs, the Land of Israel is not merely real estate or some sort of security shelter. For them, this Land is holy and they are fighting for it (and rightly so!). But you cannot fight for a land that by your own admission is not yours.

The only option open, then, is self-defense. Even rapists are allowed to defend themselves. And that is how Israel has become the state of roadblocks, barbed wire, security guards at the entrance of every café, iron domes, cement blocks, concertina, atomic detectors and mobile bomb shelters. We outfitted our elite units with tear gas and other ridiculous toys. Now we can explain to the parents of the naval commando how the best fighter in the world was injured by a club to his head.

We have cloaked ourselves in a gown of cement and barbed wire to preserve the lie that Jews can return to their ancient homeland after 2000 years with a false identity: Israeli instead of Jewish. They can forget who they are and the dreams of their ancestors and be just a normal nation — a nation like all the nations. Just like in the Gulf of Mexico, we are trying to bottle up the murky reality that is gushing to our surface with an iron dome. But we cannot cover up for the sense of justice that we have lost.

If we had retained our sense of justice, we would not be waiting for Turkey to expel our ambassador, being portrayed as the guilty rapist along the way. On the contrary, we would have recalled our ambassador from Turkey and expelled its ambassador for its declaration of war on our sovereignty. But we cannot do that, because the Turks are right. After all, we declared that Gaza belongs to the Arabs, didn't we? So what right do we have to blockade a Turkish ship outside our territorial waters?

When, in the last 20 years, have you heard an official Israeli representative — the prime minister, our ambassador to the UN or our Foreign Minister utter the simple words, "This is our land?" You can't remember? That is because it simply didn't happen. Israel is fleeing its Jewish identity and cannot even say this simple sentence.

We must return to our basic sense of justice — the justice that sustained us during our long exile and the only factor that explains why we are not rapists and why this entire Land — including Gaza, is ours and only ours. When we return to that point, we will be able to truly establish our sovereignty in this Land. As long as we continue to attempt to escape our identity, Israel will continue to slowly crumble as it hides behind its barbed wire, road blocks and most advanced defense technology in the world.

Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org. To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell)

To Go To Top

Posted by Batya Medad, May 30, 2010.

Shavua Tov, Have a Great Week. If you want to read more of my writings, please bookmark my other blogs, Shiloh Musings and me-ander. I post there much more frequently. Generally, I try to put things as simply as possible, like: Hypocrites for "Human Rights." Now for this morning's post:


There's no nice way to say this, especially considering how much hope, man-hours and money have been hyped into this Utopian idea that there can be "peace" between Israel and the Arabs, but the truth is that there's no way in this generation and probably the next, too, that there can be a genuine peace.

I gave that long, probably run-on sentence its very own paragraph. The CPA's pragmatic daughter I am wants to make it very clear. Some people mock my strong religious belief as being rather "la la" or unrealistic, but I totally disagree. It's much easier to prove G-d's existence than it is to prove that the Arabs want to live in peace with the State of Israel.

The internationally funded Appease aka Peace sic Now and all the related organizations and groups have been brainwashing Israelis for decades already. They've made such headway; we're in a real life episode of the Twilight Zone.

To make things simple, like the popular modern child-rearing technique of "time-out," we should declare a one year postponement of negotiations for every single rocket or missile the Arabs launch at Israel, whether the rocket kills, damages or just malfunctions executing the very terrorists who launched it. Remind the United States, United Nations etc that this is non-negotiable. That's what a normal, self-respecting country would do, and didn't the early secular Zionists dream of being a normal country? I agree. We shouldn't agree to anything that any other country wouldn't agree to. We must ignore the bogus human rights organizations, because they consistently condemn Israel when Israel's actions would be praised if any other country had done it.

We must, at the same time, use the military to go after those who attack us militarily. Nobody in their right mind would use body lotion on skin cancer. Would you? How about ointment on gangrene?

I certainly wouldn't interfere with the PA's negotiating with the United States over issues between them, but not anything concerning Israel. United States President Barack Hussein Obama promised them a state. Well, there's lots of unoccupied land in the continental United States without the sort of documented history that our Land has. As I've written many times, since the western/Christian world swears on the Bible they should take it seriously. This is Jewish Land and only Jewish Land. If Obama sold them a can of worms, that has nothing to do with us.

Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il

This essay is archived at http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2010/05/ israel-get-real-peace-talks-dangerous.html, which has live links to additional material.

To Go To Top

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


House destroyed in Gaza war (A.P./Khalil Hamra)

NGO Monitor finds that A.I. still exploits human rights issues to degrade human rights.
www.ngo-monitor.org/article/human_rights_ upheaval_amnesty_international_in_

When senior A.I.staff member Gita Saghal criticized A.I.'s alliance with a suspected Taliban member, A.I. suspended her. A.I.'s interim Secretary-General explained that that "jihad in self-defense" is not "antithetical to human rights." That A.I. explanation confirms NGO Monitor's complaint that A.I. degrades human rights.

In 2009, A.I.'s focused primarily on Iran, but disproportionately on Israel. A.I. distorted the Gaza war. It led NGO campaigns and released more than 20 statements accusing Israel of "unlawful," "disproportionate," and "indiscriminate" attacks against Palestinian Authority civilians. A.I. had seven in-depth reports on Israel, fewer than on every other Mideastern state.

Ideology drives A.I. more than does the cause of human rights. An 2009 report on water, claiming that Israel denies Arabs fair access "coincided with a campaign alleging that 'Israel's Control of Water [is] a Tool of Apartheid and a Means of Ethnic Cleansing.'" NGO Monitor's full report states that A.I. omitted evidence contrary to its claims that Palestinian Authority Arabs had less water than Arabs in neighboring states and omitted the quantities that they stole, which were considerable.

AI's 2009 Annual Report on the Palestinian Arabs has "token mentions of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and condemnation of indiscriminate missile attacks from Gaza, in contrast to Amnesty's targeting of Israel." (IMRA, 5/28/10).

When civilian sites are destroyed in war, the human rights organizations usually blame Israel, and not the Arab war criminals that booby-trapped those houses, stored ammunition in them, or fought alongside them so that civilian facilities took return fire. Some damage is accidental, so it should be noted that terrorist bombardment of Israel started that war, again a Palestinian Arab responsibility. If the human rights organizations cannot get that aspect straight, then one may suspect the rest of their presentation to be warped.

I did not realize that the Taliban are engaged in "jihad for self-defense," did you? One can learn much about human rights from A.I.. But one could not learn enough about the other Mideastern areas of jihad and oppression.

A tool of apartheid and ethnic cleansing? What ethnic cleansing? Arabs have been moving into Israel, and moving in and out of the Territories. To accuse Israel of a non-existent ethnic cleansing is to take up the Arabs' paranoid and propagandistic outlook. It is irresponsible. False accusations undermine the credibility of valid accusations when they were to be made. That does civil rights a disservice.

People remember human rights organizations as reformers and media organs as watchdogs over government. They are less aware that some of those organizations and organs have been rich or powerful, ideological, and unfair. They are as much the enemy of decency and governments can be.


"Security sources" find that Syria has set up bases near the Lebanese border. At those bases, Hizbullah men have their own barracks, arms warehouses, and trucks. The New York Times was shown satellite images of such a base near Adra, northeast of Damascus.

Hizbullah transports the arms into Lebanon, at will. It prefers to do so when weather conditions prevent tracking by Israeli satellites. Intelligence agencies in the U.S. and Israel believe that Hizbullah has two Scuds.

Israel was about to bomb one shipment, right after it crossed into Lebanon, but the U.S. asks Israel to desist, so it could ask Syria to halt the practice (IMRA, 5/28/10).

If the US. diplomats thought they had a chance, what were they smoking in their pipedream? The more Obama sweet-talks Iran and Syria, the more their governments bad-mouth the U.S.. Likewise, the more checkpoints Israel takes down, the more trade barriers the Palestinian Authority put up. You see, weakness encourages defiance. Muslim Arab culture considers accommodation not decency but weakness. It is time the West learns the ways of the world.


Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant is about to receive its fuel load.

Western states had started the plan, but the U.S. asked them to desist. Russia finished the task (IMRA, 5/28/10).

A rogue state can count on Russia to complete contracts. How honorable!

When Menachim Begin was Prime Minister of Israel, he held off bombing Iraq's nuclear bomb factory, in the hope of effective international intervention. Unfortunately, the rest of the world does not prevent or halt much trouble. Shortly before Iraq's plant was about to go live and "hot,' so that a raid afterwards could spread radioactivity among civilians, Begin gave the order to bomb it. One of the byproducts of that raid was lower casualties among U.S. troops in the Gulf War. A U.S. official belatedly thanked Israel. It is not popular to thank the international scapegoat for its many services.


Iran has spotted the presence of a U.S. nuclear sub in the Persian Gulf. U.S. subs have collided with ships in that narrow area, causing oil spills (IMRA, 5/28/10).

One of my more militant sources questions whether the U.S. forces are there to raid Iran or to prevent Israel from raiding Iran.

A likelier possibility is that the U.S. forces are there to counter-act any Iranian reaction against U.S. bases after an Israeli raid. Shouldn't the Security Council be telling Iran that if one country attacks it, self-defense against that country does not justify its attacking other countries not involved but which Iran doesn't like? Shouldn't the UN be condemning the threat to attack the U.S. after any Israeli raid as blackmail?

I fear for the U.S. Navy in a constricted waterway.


There is a popular misconception that peace agreements between Israel and some Arabs states and organization offer a reasonable hope for general Arab-Israel peace. This view is naïve. It takes things at face value. In reality, the pacts are superficial, and the Arabs violate them.

Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel; the PLO and Palestinian Authority (P.A.) signed a series of Oslo Accords with Israel. All those pacts were supposed to normalize relations. The Arabs got concessions of land, water, and political power, but reneged on normalization. All continued their diplomacy, as an adjunct to their wars on Israel. Egyptian military doctrine treats Israel as the enemy. The P.A. preaches military aggression against Israel and Jews. Not a hopeful precedent.

A treaty can be called a peace treaty, but the Arabs use those treaties and diplomacy to reinforce their belligerent goals. The mistake is in expecting a treaty to create peace. Usually, peace comes first, and the treaty ratifies and codifies it. The Muslim Arabs never reconciled with Israel first. How can they? Their reason for making war on Israel is religious. The treaty does not reform their religious reason for war. Therefore, while the treaty declares peace, the imams declare war.


A delegation from the EU met with Syria's President and other officials. The communique stated these points, some more than once:

"The EU should play a more effective role in the peace process, launch new initiatives and assume the fair mediator role in light of its good relations with the parties concerned... the Arab Peace Initiative is a good ground for reaching a comprehensive peace in the region..."

"...President al-Assad briefed the delegation on the economic reforms adopted by Syria, saying "We touched upon the openness, frankness and good intentions during the meetings held with the Syrian officials."

"Syria is an important regional power and assumes a basic role in the region." President al-Assad reviewed during the meeting the efforts being exerted by Syria to achieve security and stability in the Middle East, and Syria's continued work for the achievement of the just and comprehensive peace in the region in implementation of the international legitimacy resolutions, restoring the rights to their legitimate owners (5/28/10).

It seems sophomoric of each delegation to tell the other how important it is.

The EU relationship with Israel is that of slanted critic. Half the European diplomats sit at meetings at which others criticize Israel in antisemitic ways and ignore the accusers' own, real crimes. Let the EU concentrate on saving itself!

The Arab Peace initiative has nothing to do with peace. It has everything to do with advancing jihad by rendering Israel vulnerable to conquest. (Earlier articles have explained how.)

Syria is the major Arab instigator of instability in the Mideast. It recently destabilized Lebanon, which it is trying to absorb. A repeat aggressor, it has aligned itself with Iranian jihad. it arms Hizbullah terrorists. It sought to secretly build nuclear weapons.

For years, Syria refused to negotiate an end to its state of war with Israel. Now it claims it would negotiate peace, if Israel returned the Golan. That is unconvincing, since Syria attacked Israel twice before Israel acquired the Golan.

Experts believe that Syria has not undertaken effective economic reforms.


Today is supposed to be the day of a clash off the coast of Gaza. The flotilla carrying goods but also hundreds of activists, at least some of whom are terrorists, was due to arrive. However, the number of those ships has fallen to eight, and several were having difficulty loading activists against a Cyprus refusal to give permission. The Israeli Navy was set to intercept the ships. A hundred boats from Gaza, bearing relatives of prisoners in Israel and people killed in combat with Israel, were to greet the flotilla. The Israeli organization [whose U.S. counterparts' website I've used], StandWithUs plans to send out six boats bearing the slogan, "Free Gaza From Hamas." It is not stated whether participants other than the Navy are armed (IMRA, 5/29/10).

This event has the ominous portents of propaganda, hatred at least from the more notorious "activists," accident, violence, and tragedy.

It may hurt families to lose relatives or it may not, considering their views of jihad as entry to Paradise. But Hamas started the war and waged in an illegal manner guaranteed to result in more civilian casualties. The relatives should be complaining to Hamas, not against Israel.

All the Gaza prisoners in Israel were convicted of terrorism. They deserve punishment, as barbarians, not sympathy.


A common misconception is that houses built by Jews in the disputed Territories are obstacles to peace. Those who say so usually do not delve into the matter deeply. If they did, they would find no justification for the claim.

Their claim is on the superficial level that since the Arabs demand that Israel relinquish the Territories to them, building there by Jews makes it more difficult to meet Arab demands. But peace is not simply a matter of meeting Arab demands and of having a double standard about who many build houses in disputed areas.

The state of war did not arise from Israeli possession of the Territories. To the contrary, the Territories came into Israeli possession because of a war by Arab states.

Israel was accepting a UN partition proposal to leave the now disputed Territories to the Arabs. Rejecting the UN proposal, local and foreign Arabs attacked the Jews in 1947 and 1948. Since Israel did not then possess those Territories, it could not then have been Israeli possession of those Territories that prompted the war. By the same logic that the Territories are not the cause of the Arab-Israel conflict, Israeli withdrawal from those Territories would not produce peace.

There must be a reason other than those Territories for the Arab aggression of 1947, for the Egyptian-sponsored terrorism that led to the Sinai Campaign of 1957, and for the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian aggression (joined by units from other Arab states) of 1967, all before Israel captured the Territories.

Why no peace? Answer: the Arabs do not recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state. Abbas still will not recognize it. The Muslim Arab religious view maintains that once an area has become predominantly Islamic, it must remain so. They still consider Spain as lost Islamic territory.

Why then, do Arabs and supporters in the State Dept. claim that Jewish construction in the Territories is an obstacle to peace? Because they seek a pretext for whatever Israeli withdrawals they can get. The State Dept. traditionally is anti-Zionist and an appeaser of oil exporting states. Arafat explained his strategy of using Israeli withdrawals as territory from which to conquer Israel. The more Israel retreats, the easier to conquer it.

In other words, the claim is for propaganda. It hints that if Israel were to withdraw, peace would follow. That is a snare. Israeli withdrawals have been followed by more terrorism and by invigorated Arab demands for still more withdrawals. To the Arabs, Israeli withdrawals vindicate Islamic doctrine of triumph. Israel withdrawals, therefore, are an obstacle to peace. Israeli construction firms up Israel's position, making war by Arabs less feasible. Only making Israel so strong that none will attack her can bring peace. And strength, in part, depends on keeping vital territories.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, May 30, 2010.

Based on the hit song "Thriller" by Michael Jackson (or — for those of you who read Tikkun magazine — Reb Michael) — original lyrics can be found here:
www.elyrics.net/read/m/michael-jackson-lyrics/ thriller-lyrics.html)

Flotilla — Flotiller lyrics

It's close to midnight and something evil's lurking in the dark
Under the moonlight, you see a sight that almost stops your heart
They scream and shoot, terrorists fire before you make it
You fire back at the creeps right between the eyes
So what if You're stigmatized

'Cause this flotilla, flotiller night
And no one's gonna save you from the jihadists about to strike
You know flotiller, thriller night
You're fighting for your life against a killer, flotiller tonight

'Cause this is flotiller, thriller night
There ain't no second chance against the thing with forty eyes, girl
flotiller, thriller night
You're fighting for your life against the killer, flotiller tonight

They're out to get you, there's demons closing in on every side
They will possess you unless you fire back
Now is the time for you and I to cuddle close together, yeah
All through the night I'll save you from the terror on the screen
I'll make you see

That this is flotiller, thriller night
flotiller, thriller night

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, May 30, 2010.

This is by Dan Miller and it appeared May 29, 2010 in Pajamas Media.

Dan Miller graduated from Yale University in 1963 and from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1966. He lives in a rural area in Panama.


Having read Churchill's The Gathering Storm for the third or fourth time, it strikes me as frighteningly inauspicious, and not only for the United States today. Churchill was a leading proponent of stopping Hitler before stopping him would involve the massive devastation inflicted on much of the world when World War II eventually came. He noted:

We must regard as deeply blameworthy before history ... during this fatal period. Delight in smooth-sounding platitudes, refusal to face unpleasant facts, desire for popularity and electoral success irrespective of the vital interests of the State, genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundation ... the strong and violent pacifism which at this time dominated the Labour-Socialist Party, the utter devotion of the Liberals to sentiment apart from reality ... constituted a picture of British fatuity and fecklessness which, though devoid of guile, was not devoid of guilt, and, though free from wickedness or evil design, played a definite part in unleashing upon the world of horrors and miseries which even so far as they have unfolded, are already beyond comparison in human experience.

Far worse horrors and miseries are now, decades later, easily possible. The world has changed dramatically and we are now in an exponential age[1]. Now, we have little more than "Churchillian resolution in the face of untrammeled cow flatulence" and the horrors of global warming[2]; this seems a misplaced priority. History remains important — perhaps to a greater extent than ever before.

There are those who dilute the conception of what happened in and was done by Nazi Germany by drawing analogies to far less malign events. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles recently said[3] the following in reference to Arizona's new immigration law: "I can't imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques." Ironically, he went on to say, "Let's not allow fearful and ill-informed rhetoric to shape public policy." We have also declared war on obesity and possibly acne.

One petty example of the problem facing England was the 1933 Oxford resolution, which stated that "this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country." This attitude (perhaps understandable not very many years following the end of World War I) and its all too adequate representation of the pacifist mood then pervasive in the country caused Churchill to write:

Mussolini, like Hitler, regarded Britannia as a frightened, flabby old woman, who at worst would only bluster and was, anyhow, incapable of making war.

Britain and France were both weary and reluctant to do much of anything about Hitler until too long after he had conquered territory which, had there been any showing of willingness to use force against his depredations, he would not have attempted. At the Nuremberg trials:

Colonel Eger, representing Czechoslovakia, asked Marshal Keitel: "Would the Reich have attacked Czechoslovakia in 1938 if the Western Powers had stood by Prague?

Marshal Keitel answered: "Certainly not. We were not strong enough militarily. The object of Munich [i.e., reaching an agreement at Munich] was to get Russia out of Europe, to gain time, and to complete the German armaments."

The Treaty of Versailles imposed grave and unreasonable burdens on a defeated Germany, and Hitler rose to power at least in part due to German resentment and his genius in taking full advantage of it. President Wilson's League of Nations was toothless and impotent, and its objections to such things as Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia had no effect except, perhaps, to make it the butt of jokes. Would things have been different had the United States joined the League of Nations? I doubt it, but it is impossible to know. Churchill observed:

The Americans merely shrugged their shoulders, so that in a few years they had to pour out the blood and treasures of the New World to save themselves from mortal danger.

The world is quite different now than in the 1930s, but President Obama in some respects resembles both Neville Chamberlain and his predecessor, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin. Baldwin found foreign affairs a bit of a bother but wished to be on good terms with the European dictators Hitler and Mussolini; he believed that "conciliation and the avoidance of anything likely to offend them was the best method." Chamberlain also "wanted to be on friendly terms" with them, and "conceived himself capable of achieving this relationship." He did not know what was going on between Mussolini and Hitler. Desirous of peace in our time, Chamberlain worked diligently to promote it. According to Churchill:

His all-pervading hope was to go down to history as the Great Peacemaker; and for this he was prepared to strive continually in the teeth of facts, and face great risks for himself and his country. Unhappily, he ran into tides the force of which he could not measure, and met hurricanes from which he did not flinch, but with which he could not cope.

Finally, when the Nazi aspirations toward much of Europe became so clear that Chamberlain had to face them, he did. By then, it was almost but not quite too late. Germany had for years, in gross violation of treaties but with the acquiescence of others, built up her army, her navy, her air corps and the materials needed to arm and otherwise to supply them. Britain had not and had instead pursued her own disarmament in the interest of parity and showing the way of righteousness to the rest of the world.

Increasingly in recent years, the United States has seemed to be more intent upon ensuring political correctness[4] in the military than upon preparing for the next war, in the forlorn hope that there will never be another. She has seemed to be more interested in gaining popularity with our enemies — and turning upon our own military[5] in the process — by apologizing for perceived past slights and by assuming that they will, in turn, accept us as equals rather than as bullies. This has not been helpful. Instead, like the Oxford resolution of 1933, it has produced perceptions of weakness and submission; it has made the U.S. appear as an ally not to be relied upon.

Historically, the U.S. has had a special relationships with Britain and Israel. Those special relationships are fast fading into history, and we seem willing to sacrifice[6] Israel,[7] Poland,[8] and the Czech Republic[9] upon the altar of good will toward their enemies. Perhaps the Obama administration "is incapable of believing that their actions can have marked consequences on the free world."

In the late 1930s, Czechoslovakia and Poland were also sacrificed due to an illusion that Hitler's appetite for lebensraum would be satisfied; it wasn't. A few mild words are now occasionally spoken about the ill treatment of citizens in Venezuela[10], now becoming a Cuban colony,[11] and in Iran by their masters, but I strongly suspect that those words are more productive of giggles than of peace. Meanwhile, China is strengthening its military relations[12] with Cuba and, presumably thereby, with Venezuela. Russia[13] seems to be[14] doing much the same. The advice of "hold your friends close and your enemies closer" seems to have been misconstrued.

Like (formerly Great) Britain in the 1930s, the United States seemingly lacks an overall strategic objective. This problem is made worse, if such is possible, by continuously making the gross mistake, as Churchill put it, of "behaving as if all the world were as easy, un-calculating, and well-meaning as herself."

Poor England! Leading her free, careless life from day to day, amid endless good tempered parliamentary babble, she followed, wondering, down the downward path which led to all she wanted to avoid.

Hitler's Germany during World War II may have wanted peace, but not until after she had achieved victory by subduing many other countries and harvesting their human and natural resources. Japan may also have wanted peace and prosperity on her own terms; peace was eventually accomplished, but not in the way she or Germany must have intended. China and Russia presumably want peace on their own terms as well and, like Germany under Hitler, seem more than willing to assist such useful idiots as Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and even the Obama administration as best suits their purposes. The United States can no more afford to be complicit in this process than could Britain in the 1930s.

This article is in memory of Sir Winston Spencer Churchill (1874-1965), whose bronze bust was removed from the Oval Office less than a month after the ascension of President Obama to the United States throne.


[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY

[2] http://article.nationalreview.com/432476/ human-rights-watch-and-the-nazis/conrad-black?page=1

[3] http://cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot. com/2010/04/arizonas-new-anti-immigrant-law.html

[4] http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/to-keep- america-safe-we-must-remake-the-military-in-obamas-image/

[5] http://www.humanevents.com/ article.php?id=36699

[6] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ world/Risk-grows-that-Israel-will-go-alone-to-take- out-Iranian-nukes-92138599.html

[7] http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/ 2010/04/026148.php?utm_source=feedburner& utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29

[8] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ sep/17/missile-defence-shield-barack-obama

[9] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ sep/17/missile-defence-shield-barack-obama

[10] http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/are-socialist- worker-militias-coming-to-a-city-near-you/?singlepage=true

[11] http://lucianne.com/article/?pageid= Benny_Marx

[12] http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId= 355966&CategoryId=14510

[13] http://laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId= 12394&ArticleId=354706

[14] http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/ what-if-anything-are-russia-venezuela/

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 30, 2010.

Netanyahu (who is in Toronto, where he participated in a pro-Israel rally) is going to the White House this week: It's a command performance — commanded by the president, that is. The prime minister couldn't easily say, "Sorry, I choose not to come." It wouldn't be realistic to expect that of him — he does not have that sort of resolute stamina. Though I not only wish he would, but think he should.

Expectations are that the president will be all "kissy-kissy" as he endeavors to show how he loves Israel and the Jewish people.

After all, he held a White House reception last Thursday for Jewish American Heritage Month. What could be bad? Hall of Fame baseball pitcher Sandy Koufax was his guest. Doesn't that fix things?

Delegations from various Jewish federations across the country came to Washington in the last few days as well to meet with administration officials and receive assurances of how strong US-Israel ties are.

I find it all rather unbearable.


Theories abound as to why he's doing this: because he's concerned about Democratic success in the November congressional elections, because there's been too much pressure on him for how he's treated Israel, or because he thinks he'll get more concessions from us with regard to the "peace process," and thereby be able to flaunt his success.

It may be one of the above, or all — I am not going to belabor this now. You may want to see Caroline Glick's take on the situation, in her article, "Netanyahu, Obama's newest prop":
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2010/05/ netanyahu-obamas-newest-prop.php

Her point, basically, is that this is for show — for whatever reason, and that Obama has not essentially changed his policy towards us one iota.

Not only do I concur, I offer disturbing evidence here of the underlying hostility the president bears us. He is exhibiting enormous willingness to undermine our security — and behave deceptively — even as he opens his arms to embrace Netanyahu. If I were the prime minister, I'd watch my back.


As many of you are aware, Obama was tremendously supportive of, and even promoted, the international non-proliferation treaty review conference, which has just finished meeting at UN headquarters in New York. On Friday, the review conference passed a resolution, with 189 signatories, that calls for a conference in 2012 to push for a nuclear free Middle East, and speaks of appointing a special coordinator to visit the region and prepare for such a conference.

The resolution singles out Israel — the only country mentioned by name — calling upon her to sign the NPT and open herself to international inspection. But it does not mention Iran, which is a signatory of the treaty and in violation as it seeks to develop nuclear weapons.


To no avail in recent weeks, Netanyahu implored Obama not to pursue this path: At the conference on Friday, the US delegation voted for the resolution.

Then, after the fact, Obama had the unmitigated gall to declare the resolution unfair to Israel. Yes, he said, he is for a nuclear-free Middle East, but first the nations of the region must recognize Israel's right to exist, sign peace agreements, enter into security arrangements, limit arsenals of weaponry, etc.

There is no one, but no one, who imagines that all of this will happen by 2012. So, then, if these are necessary precursors to a nuclear-free Middle East, why sanction a conference in two years?

This time he cannot play it both ways at the same time: his actions are too public and too blatant. What he has done is to betray Israel. As Yossi Melman put it in Haaretz: Obama sacrificed Israel for the success of the conference.


The official response put out by the Israeli government said:

"This resolution is deeply flawed and hypocritical: It ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world.

"It singles out Israel, the Middle East's only true democracy and the only country threatened with annihilation. Yet the terrorist regime in Iran, which is racing to develop nuclear weapons and which openly threatens to wipe Israel off the map, is not even mentioned in the resolution.

"The real problem with Weapons Of Mass Destruction in the Middle East does not relate to Israel but to those countries that have signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and brazenly violated it — Iraq under Sadaam, Libya, Syria and Iran.

"That is why the resolution adopted by the NPT Review Conference not only fails to advance regional security but actually sets it back.

"As a non-signatory state of the NPT, Israel is not obligated by the decisions of this Conference, which has no authority over Israel.

"Given the distorted nature of this resolution, Israel will not be able to take part in its implementation."


The statement also says that the prime minister will discuss this with the president when they meet on Tuesday. Unfortunately, it additionally notes "the important clarifications that have been made by the United States regarding its policy."

That is, we've closed our eyes, at least publicly, to the duplicity of Obama, nodding in his direction with a note of appreciation for his objections after the fact.


And so, let's go my friends.

In the US, please, contact President Obama and tell him you are not fooled by Jewish receptions in the White House. With the US support for the NPT review conference resolution, he has gone further in undermining Israel's security than any US president ever has. There is no way that objections after the fact mitigate what he has done: He has betrayed Israel. Let him know that you are watching him closely and will spread the word everywhere you can.

Numbers, my friends! Numbers count, so get this out to undermine Obama's complacency.
Fax: 202-456-2461 White House Comment line: 202-456-1111
e-mail form via:


These are only disparate hints, and yet...

First, last week there was a report in the NYTimes indicating that last September General Petraeus signed a directive, the Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force Execute Order:

"The seven-page directive appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country's nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive. The Obama administration insists that for the moment, it is committed to penalizing Iran for its nuclear activities only with diplomatic and economic sanctions. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has to draw up detailed war plans to be prepared in advance, in the event that President Obama ever authorizes a strike.

"'The Defense Department can't be caught flat-footed,' said one Pentagon official with knowledge of General Petraeus's order."

No promise of anything, but nice to know. Means it's true, at some level, that nothing is off the table.


Then, a report in today's JPost alludes to an article — "Can a Nuclear Armed Iran be Deterred?" — that appears in the current issue of Military Review. It is by Amitai Etzioni, American-Israeli professor at George Washington University. Attacking Iran's nuclear facilities might be very difficult, he says, because they are so well hidden and protected, in addition to which, some are in heavily populated areas. However, there is a "different military option": "The basic approach seeks not to degrade Iran's nuclear capacities...but to compel the regime to change its behavior by causing ever-higher levels of pain."

What Etzioni is suggesting is bombing of military bases, airports, bridges, railway stations and other infrastructure.

Notes the Post: "Neither Israel nor the United States has ever publicly spoken about the targets that they would bomb if they decide to attack Iran."

All very interesting.


Finally, today, the Sunday Times (London) reported that Israel is planning to permanently station at least one submarine carrying nuclear cruise missiles (we have three) in the Persian Gulf, within striking distance of Iran.

Well...news from London is not authoritative. But this too provides a spark of hope. Maybe we won't be sitting ducks after all. It occurs to me that simply knowing the sub was there might have deterrence value sufficient to give Iran pause on certain matters such as unleashing Hezbollah on us with unconventional weapons.

If this story is true...


You may have seen a May 24th article in The Guardian (UK), or references to it, claiming that in 1975, then defense minister Shimon Peres offered to sell nuclear weapons to the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Since I've been asked about this, I would like to offer my conclusion that there is nothing to this charge. The office of president Peres put out an unequivocal denial in response to the article:

"There exists no basis in reality for the claims published this morning by The Guardian that in 1975 Israel negotiated with South Africa the exchange of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, The Guardian elected to write its piece based on the selective interpretation of South African documents and not on concrete facts.

"Israel has never negotiated the exchange of nuclear weapons with South Africa. There exists no Israeli document or Israeli signature on a document that such negotiations took place.

"The Office of the President regrets The Guardian's decision to publish such an article without requesting comment from any Israeli officials."


Elsewhere, as well, I've seen material that refutes this claim. My impression is two-fold: First that this charge is being made in part out of an attempt to link Israel, as an "apartheid" state, with the state that was apartheid. And two, I believe the South Africans may well have sought nuclear weapons from us — there is talk of "South African documents" — but that they did not receive a positive response from us.


According to Khaled Abu Toameh, over the weekend PA president Mahmoud Abbas declared that the PA considers the US and not Israel to be its negotiating partner.

According to Abbas Zaki, member of the Fatah Central Committee, Abbas told US envoy George Mitchell that the PA does not believe that the government of Netanyahu is a real peace partner.

Well, we knew this because of the dynamics that are clear for all to see. But here it is explicitly said.

What nonsense. The PA cannot make "peace" with Israel by negotiating with the US, even though this is what it clearly hopes to do.


The Flotilla is apparently on its way. Stories vary with regard to how many ships actually departed; they apparently left Cyprus yesterday and traveled a way and then stopped — either because of malfunctions or some convoluted plans in terms of how to proceed. Arrival is projected for tomorrow.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, May 30, 2010.

The "Son of Hamas," whose recent book reveals his path to Christianity and exposes Hamas terrorism, says that U.S. Homeland Security wants to deport him on charges that he is a terrorist.

Writing on his publisher's blog, Mosab Hassan Yousef expressed his "outrage" and described what he called a "security system that is so primitive and naive that it endangers the lives of countless Americans." Yousef wrote that he faces a deportation hearing on June 30 at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Immigration Court in San Diego.

He questioned why he is being deported. "For what? For risking my life fighting terrorism in the Middle East for 10 years? For saving the lives of Israelis, Palestinians and Americans?"

His saga began in January, 2007 when he arrived at an American airport on a tourist visa without interference. "Seven months later, I went to the Homeland Security office, knocked on their door and told them, 'Hey, guys, I am the son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, my father is involved in a terrorist organization, and I would like political asylum in your country.'"

"They were shocked," Yousef wrote on the blog. "I came to you and told you who I am to wake you up. I wanted them to see that they have huge gaps in their security and their understanding of terrorism and make changes before it's too late.'

His application for asylum was rejected last February "because there were reasonable grounds for believing he was a danger to the security of the United States and [was] engaged in terrorist activity."

In a hearing, he presented a draft of his book "Son of Hamas" as evidence in his behalf. Homeland Security senior attorney Kerri Calcador claimed that, "In the book, the respondent discusses his extensive involvement with Hamas in great detail. For example, in one portion of the book, a member of Shin Bet shows the respondent a list of suspects implicated in a March 2001 suicide bombing and asks the respondent whether he knows the individuals. The respondent indicates that he does know five of the people on the list and states that he previously drove them to safe houses."

Yousef countered that he was working as a secret agent for the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) at the time. "No one — not me, not my father, not even Israel — knew at the time that these men were involved with suicide bombings," Yousef argued. "I was the one who connected these men with the bombing at the Hebrew University cafeteria in July 2002. And Homeland Security would do well to remember that there were five American citizens among the dead. Apparently the agency needs also to be reminded that I was the one who located the terrorists and led to their arrest or death."

He also claims that he posed as a terrorist while working for Israel. "Yes, I carried a gun," he wrote. "Yes, I was in terrorist meetings with Yasser Arafat, my father and other Hamas leaders. It was part of my job. And I passed on to the Shin Bet all the information I gathered during those meetings and saved the lives of many people — including many Americans.

"Homeland Security has absolutely no idea of the dangers that lie ahead. For nearly 30 years, I watched from the inside as Hamas dug its claws deeper and deeper into Israel. They started awkwardly, clumsily, but they got good at it. And al-Qaeda is becoming more like Hamas.

"Al-Qaeda started with huge attacks like September 11. But bin Laden has learned from Hamas's war against Israel how to bleed its enemy. Al-Qaeda understands how effective the Hamas strategy will be on American soil."

A former Israeli security agent, identified as "G," has confirmed Yousef's account as a secret agent and said that Yousef's spying saved the lives of many Israelis.

This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu who writes for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

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


The conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has concluded with setting a schedule for another conference, a regional conference on eliminating non-conventional weapons in the Mideast. They suggested that Israel, India, and Pakistan join the treaty.

To produce a concluding document that would be generally accepted, provisions were inserted that all together disturbs most of the members. There is vague wording about being stronger. The document is considered a "great achievement." (Neil MacFarquhar, NY Times, 5/29, A11.)

A "great achievement" for whom, how? Like American politicians not wanting to face a problem, the international politicians set a new date for a meeting, appoint a commission, or make a study, but do nothing. Considering the make up of the UN, doing nothing isn't as bad as the alternative, doing bad.

The conference was an exercise in futility, like the UN sanctions on Iran that do not get passed unless watered down to ineffectiveness. The crucial flaw remains that nuclear scofflaws are getting away with proliferation and violation, unless Israel strikes their nuclear plants.


HERETICS: Terrorists murdered dozens of people in two minority mosques in Lahore, Pakistan. As people prepared for prayer, nine youths burst in, opened fire at the helpless civilians, and some set off bombs that took their own lives, too. I spare you the details of the gore, but it is horrifying.

The crime of the doomed? They belong to a sect that follows Islam except for believing that their leader is a "messenger" referred to by Muhammad. For that, the government has declared them heretics. it forbids them to call themselves Muslims and their temples mosques (Waqar Gilani and Jane Perlez).

HINDUS: In one town of Pakistan in a single week, 57 Hindus in three waves converted under pressure to Islam. The pressure was from their employers and their neighbors. The employers were, themselves, under pressure from customers and suppliers, boycotting them for hiring Hindus. The Hindus converted in order to keep their jobs and ability to support their families. Such is life in the town of Sialkot, Pakistan.

The source: "Diligent Media Corporation, which owns DNA (Daily News & Analysis), is a joint venture between two industry majors — the Dainik Bhaskar Group and Zee Group. With a reach of more than 120 countries and access to more than 250 million viewers globally..."

CONCLUSION: The two incidents have in common intolerance by Pakistani society. It is not just terrorism, not just government, but government, terrorists, and society as a whole. This impression of Pakistan should inform U.S. foreign policy makers about what to expect from dealing with Pakistan.

What temerity of callow youths to impose a death penalty on people who do them no harm!


The New Israel Fund (NIF) advertised a defense against criticism by NGO Monitor that denounces NGO Monitor but ignores the actual criticism, based on detailed research.

The ad called NGO Monitor "a mouthpiece for the extreme right. The ad further declared that NGO Monitor "distorts the facts," equates criticism (legitimate or otherwise) with "sedition," and denies "Israel's obligations to comply with international law." The ad also accused NGO Monitor of working against Israeli democracy. The ad adduced no evidence to support those contentions.

NGO Monitor's denial states, "Instead of attacks on NGO Monitor, NIF needs to reconsider its support for groups that campaign to erase Israel's Jewish framework, promote anti-Israel boycotts, aid Goldstone and UN demonization, help prosecute Israeli officials abroad, and equate Israel with 'Russia, China, Sudan, and other authoritarian regimes.' These are the real 'attacks on Israel's democratic foundations.'"

NGO Monitor said that the defamatory NIF counter-attack comprises irrelevant distractions from the controversy and themselves are attacks on Israeli democracy in the sense of attempting to cow or smear opposition. The ad answers NGO Monitor's legitimate criticism with false claims that the criticism is illegitimate, without backing up the answer (IMRA, 5/28/10).


NGO Monitor had advertised in the Jerusalem Post its criticism of New Israel Fund (NIF). Their import is that NIF claims to love Israel, but gives millions of dollars to groups that defame Israel. Here are some examples of NIF's purported stance, and NGO Monitor's rebuttal: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/

1, NIF: "If... [an NGO] denies Jews the right to self determination, that organization would not receive a grant from us." Rachel Liel, NIF-Israel Executive Director, April 2010

NGO: 'NIF grantee Mada al-Carmel ($200,000 in 2008) calls for a 'change in the definition of the State of Israel from a Jewish state,'" and bringing the Palestinian Arabs into Israel, which would effectively end Jewish self-determination.

2. NIF: "We deeply disagree with the use of 'apartheid' in the Israeli context." Daniel Sokatch, NIF CEO, March 2010

NGO: "NIF grantee B'Tselem's ($357,569 in 2008) Jessica Montell: 'I think the word apartheid is useful for mobilizing people because of its emotional power. In some cases, the situation in the West Bank is worse than apartheid in South Africa.'"

3.NIF: "None of our organizations appeared before the UN [Goldstone] commission." — Rachel Liel, April 2010

NGO: "NIF grantees (combined total $2.2 million in 2008) submitted a joint statement to Goldstone alleging 'human rights violations for which Israel must be held accountable.' Officials from one grantee, PCATI, gave anti-Israel testimony before Goldstone."

4. NIF: "NIF opposes the BDS movement... [and] believes these tactics to be

unproductive, inflammatory and ineffective." — Daniel Sokatch, March 2010

NGO: "6 NIF grantees (combined total $477,974 in 2008) successfully petitioned the Norwegian Pension Fund to divest from Israeli firms."

5. NIF: "We...firmly oppose attempts to prosecute Israeli officials in foreign courts..." — NIF Website: FAQs

NGO: "NIF grantee Adalah ($510,150 in 2008) submitted a legal opinion to a Spanish court in support of a lawfare case against Israeli officials." (IMRA, 5/28/10).

If NGO Monitor's specific criticisms of NIF were incorrect, NIF easily could have challenged them. It did not. Based on that tacit admission that the criticisms were correct, is there are case for suing NIF for fraudulent solicitation?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, May 20, 2010.

More Muslim terrorist cells were exposed in the US in 2009 than in any year since 9/11. Islamic terrorism constitutes a real and present danger to the US in spite of — and inflamed by — President Obama's appeasement of Islam, as demonstrated in his most significant speeches at the Turkish Parliament on April 6, 2010 and at Cairo University on June 4, 2010.

The intensification of the Muslim terrorist threat, despite Obama's rough/critical/cold attitude toward the Jewish State, refutes the claim that the Arab-Israel conflict, the Palestinian issue or the US-Israel friendship are the root cause of anti-US Islamic terrorism.

Anti-US Islamic terrorism has been bolstered by the expansion of Hizballah's operational, financial and political infrastructures in Latin America, notwithstanding the contention by Obama and his advisors that supposedly there is no global Islamic terrorism (only Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorism), that ostensibly there is no Jihadist terrorism ("because Jihad means to purify oneself...") and that terrorism has been seemingly a derivative of Western exploitation of the Third World.

President Obama was right when he declared — at Cairo University — that "Islam has always been part of America's story." Indeed, Islamic terrorism targeted US ships between 1776 and the beginning of the 19th century. In fact, John Quincy Adams, the 6th president of the USA, researched the causes of anti-Western Islamic terrorism, concluding that its core cause was endemic hostility toward the "infidel." During the 20th century, the US became a chief-target for Muslim Brotherhood hate-education, which was transformed into a manufacturing-line of anti-US terrorists. In 1983 — when US tanks in Lebanon stopped Israel's hot-pursuit of Arafat — 300 US Marines were murdered by Muslim terrorists who blew up the US embassy and Marines Headquarters in Beirut. In 1998, 300 persons were murdered when Muslim terrorists hit the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In 2001, the British Muslim Richard Reid, the "Shoe Bomber," failed to blow up an American Airlines plane bound for NY. In 2009, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim convert, murdered a US soldier at an Army recruiting post in Arkansas, Hosam Maher Smadi planned to blow up an office building in Dallas, Nidal Hasan murdered 13 US soldiers and injured 31 at Fort Hood, Texas, etc. in 2010, an Islamic terror act was foiled at Times Square, etc.

The increase in Islamic terrorist operations in the US has been a direct result of the substantial growth in the number of Jihad-oriented Imams in US penitentiaries, seminaries and mosques: the dramatic boost in the number of Muslim Brotherhood-inspired US mosques: the expanded exposure of US Muslims to the Jihad ideology via Saudi and Qatari-funded Muslim TV channels and Internet; the rise in the number of Muslim terror organizations posing as charity foundations and summer camps, which benefit from tax exemptions; and, the surge in the number of activists, who draft American Muslims to training and indoctrination camps in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and the Palestinian Authority. Most Muslim terrorists in the USA are Arabs and Pakistanis.

The world leading Middle East scientist, Prof. Fuad Ajami of Johns Hopkins and Stanford universities, a Lebanese Shi'ite, wrote in the Wall Street Journal on May 10, 2010: "No strategy of winning hearts and minds, no great outreach, will bring this [Western democracies VS radical Islam] struggle to an end. America can't conciliate these furies." Ajami attributes contemporary Islamic fury and terrorism to the teaching of Egypt's Sayyid Qutb — one of the founding fathers of the Muslim Brotherhood — who considered the US a moral threat to Muslims and condemned Christians and Jews to hell.

The inherent religious animosity toward the US has been intensified by Muslim leaders, who consider US values — such as freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, free election, free market and free Internet — as a present and clear danger to their own dictatorial regimes. Moreover, Iran considers the US as the most effective obstacle to the attainment of its megalomaniac aspirations. Syria views the US as a key obstacle to Damascus' historic goal of controlling "Southern Syria" — Jordan. Therefore, they support anti-US terrorism, irrespective of the Palestinian issue, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Jerusalem, settlements or the existence of the Jewish State.

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

This article appeared May 28, 2010 YnetNews (www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3895486,00.html).

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Spyer, May 29, 2010.

North Korean spokesmen reacted furiously last week to claims by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman that Pyongyang is supplying weapons technology to Iran and Syria. Representatives of the regime of Kim Jong-Il described Lieberman as an "imbecile." The official Korean Central News Agency in a memorable phrase accused the foreign minister in an official statement of "faking up sheer lies."

The indignant denials notwithstanding, recent studies indicate that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, as North Korea is officially known, is indeed playing a crucial but little remarked upon role in facilitating the arming of the Iran-led regional axis, including in the area of weapons of mass destruction. The North Korean role is multifaceted, and evidence has emerged of direct links to terror organizations such as Hizbullah and extensive strategic relations with both Iran and Syria.

A recent study by Christina Lin, a former US Department Defense official and specialist on China, looked into North Korea's strategic partnership with Iran. Lin noted that North Korea has been described as the "the most important single leak" in the international anti-proliferation effort in the Middle East.

Iranian-North Korean strategic cooperation dates back to the first days of the Islamic Republic. Its basis is clear. Iran needs access to advanced military technology to underwrite its regional ambitions. Its main suppliers are Russia and China. But both these countries are active members of the international system, and hence are to some degree constrained by international pressures. North Korea, on the other hand, is an isolated country, indifferent to Western attempts to control the access of Middle East radicals to advanced armaments.

North Korean assistance plays a vital role in the Iranian missile program. Its flagship Shihab missile project is a product of the relationship. The Shihab is based on North Korea's Nodong missile series. Iran is reported to have purchased 12 Nodong missile engines from North Korea in 1999, beginning the development of the Shihab-3. The Shihab-3, which has a range of 1,300-1,500 kilometers, places Israel within range.

More recently, Iranian officials were present at the testing of the advanced Taepodong-2 missile in North Korea in July 2006. This missile is the basis for the Iranian development of the Shihab-6, which has not yet been tested. These are intercontinental, nuclear capable ballistic missile systems, thought to have a range of 5,000-6,000 kilometers.

One report has also suggested that Iran and North Korea are jointly seeking to develop a reentry vehicle for the Nodong/Shihab-3, which would be intended to carry a nuclear warhead.

In addition, an Iranian opposition report in 2008 identified the presence of North Korean experts at a facility near Teheran engaged in attempts to develop a nuclear warhead to be placed on intermediate range ballistic missiles such as the Shihab-3 and the Nodong. The report was cited by Agence France Presse.

The North Korean strategic link with Iran is not limited to Teheran. Rather, evidence suggests that it extends to cooperation with other, more junior members of the Iran-led regional alliance. Thus, Iranian defector Ali Reza Asghari is reported to have confirmed that Iran helped finance the participation of North Korean personnel in the Syrian plutonium reactor at al-Kibar destroyed by Israel in September 2007. Iranian scientists were also present at the site, the goal of which was to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

Three North Korean scientists were reported to have been among the dead following an explosion at a Syrian chemical weapons facility near Aleppo in July 2007, suggesting North Korean involvement in other areas of the WMD endeavors of Iran and its allies.

And one must not forget also the extensive evidence which has emerged to suggest a North Korean role in the construction of the Hizbullah underground tunnel network which played a vital role in the 2006 Second Lebanon War. The network, according to the Intelligence Online Web site, was created by Hizbullah militants trained in the construction of underground facilities by North Korean experts. The tunnels in Lebanon are said to bear a striking resemblance to similar facilities discovered by the South Koreans in the Demilitarized Zone separating the two Koreas.

So despite North Korean official anger at Lieberman's remarks, the evidence is well-documented and overwhelming. Pyongyang is a vital factor in the arming of the Iran-led strategic axis in the Middle East.

But why is North Korea playing this role? There is, after all, little ideological common ground between the Shi'ite Islamists in Teheran and Baalbek and the servants of the bizarre "Juche" philosophy used by Kim Jong-il to justify his dictatorship.

The factors underpinning North Korean support for Iran and its allies are as simple as they are powerful: common enemies and hard cash. As a known rogue WMD proliferator, and as perhaps the most repressive regime currently on the planet, North Korea faces diplomatic and economic isolation. Like Iran, it is the subject of UN Security Council sanctions because of its nuclear program. Iran is prepared to pay good money for military and scientific assistance, and to underwrite Pyongyang's own research and development programs, from which it stands to benefit. North Korea and Iran play a similar role in their respective regions of opposition and subversion toward the US and its allies. A cynic might add that the tendency of both regimes to indulge in the faking up of sheer lies is a further point of commonality between them.

These firm foundations mean that — short of action taken to disturb it — the friendship between the Kim Jong-il dictatorship in North Korea and the Iran-led "resistance bloc" in the Middle East is likely to flourish and continue to mutually benefit both partners in the years ahead.

Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Herzliya, Israel.

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Chuck Morse, May 28, 2010.

"Uncle Ho and the 2-state solution"

Soviet archives, declassified shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990, indicate that in 1973 Yasser Arafat's PLO operatives were advised by North Vietnamese political trainers in Hanoi to promote the so-called "two-state solution" as a negotiating tactic, as opposed to their previous policy of calling for the complete destruction of Israel. Arafat admired the North Vietnamese for their ability to garner sympathy and support within the American left, and he sought to emulate that success. By 1973, it had become clear that the crude PLO rhetoric, which included calls to drive the Jews into the sea and slaughter them all, was not winning any friends. Ho Chi Minh's advice worked like a charm while the PLO terrorism against Israel nevertheless continued unabated.

Palestinian terrorist Abu Iyad, in his memoir published in Arabic and entitled "Palestinian Without A Motherland," recounts North Vietnamese political advisers suggesting to him that the PLO "stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand." The North Vietnamese had experienced amazing success in terms of convincing the American left that they were not engaged in an aggressive war of conquest against South Vietnam but were rather spearheading an effort to liberate the South from American oppression and establish independence for Vietnam under their rule.

To truly understand anti-Israel vitriol in Middle East read Chuck Morse's "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini"

The North Vietnamese propaganda failed to mention the fact that Ho Chi Minh, whose real name was Nyugen ai Quoc, had been a Soviet agent for 20 years before he became a public figure in North Vietnam in 1945. Hindsight indicates that the South Vietnamese people did not feel either liberated or independent due to the North Vietnamese conquest in 1975, as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese who braved shark-infested waters and pirates in their quest to escape the socialist paradise by getting on rickety boats. Neither did the people of Laos or Cambodia appear to appreciate the wonders associated with the communist takeover of their countries. The collectivization programs caused one of the worst genocides of the century, as radical Marxist Pol Pot collectivized Cambodia leading to millions of deaths.

The PLO was no doubt encouraged when the U.S. Congress, having elected a new crop of young liberals in 1974, including Patrick Leahy and Joe Biden, cut off all aid to South Vietnam in March of 1975, which led to a full-scale invasion from the north and the fall of Saigon two months later. This disgraceful betrayal of America's ally occurred two years after the signing of the Paris Peace Accord in January of 1973, a treaty that resulted in the end of the war and the full withdrawal of American troops. The sellout of South Vietnam by American liberals, both on the street and in Congress, no doubt fostered hope in the souls of the PLO and their allies that American liberals would one day also sell out Israel — and they had reason to be encouraged.

Ho's advice, which was to employ Marxist rhetoric when describing the Palestinian Arabs as oppressed and occupied, while referring to Israel in language that was probably borrowed from the chapters pertaining to Jews in Hitler's "Mein Kampf," a very popular book in the Arab world, was wildly successful in terms of garnering support from the international left including, to varying degrees, the Jewish left and even the Israeli left. The pressure in the ensuing decades led to the Oslo Accords, signed by Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yatzak Rabin in a White House lawn ceremony presided over by President Bill Clinton on Sept. 13, 1993. On that same day, in a pre-taped interview that ran on Jordan TV, Arafat explained in Arabic that: "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do it in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."

Chuck Morse is a syndicated columnist and author of several books dealing with issues affecting Israel. He is a renowned radio talk show host where he co-hosts "The Fairness Doctrine" along with Dr. Patrick O'Heffernan in his home region of New England and was a candidate for US Congress in the 4th District of Massachusetts in 2004.

Read a review of Morse's "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini" here.

To interview Chuck Morse, please contact Ben Kilgore or Jess Segovia at (781) 698-9454 or media@wnd.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bill Warner, May 28, 2010.

This was written by Kenneth Roberts.


In the TV sitcom 'Green Acres', Oliver Wendell Douglas, a New York attorney runs for public office against the popular incumbent. A rumor starts, suggesting that Douglas had been debarred as a lawyer. Though not true, the rural folk keep repeating the lie during the campaign, until everyone accepts it as an established fact... and besides, it's highly amusing to repeat the slander. Candidate Douglas is frustrated beyond endurance. Even though he is an accomplished attorney, he doesn't stand a chance against this entrenched prejudice.

In the Koran, Mohammed uses the same technique. All sorts of things in the Koran are no more than cartoonish misrepresentations of people and other religions, but Moslems have no problem accepting them as established facts, merely because Mohammed said so and repeated them over and over, giving them divine authority... and besides, Mohammed's caricatures are highly amusing! Cartoons work. Hyperbole works. They entertain. They work viscerally by circumventing the intellect and appealing directly to the emotions through laughter and sneering mockery. A thing doesn't have to be true to be fun!

Mocking outsiders is fun! It puts 'them' down, puts 'us' above them and thus dehumanizes 'them'. 'We' get control of 'them'.

According to Mohammed, not only do kafir-subhumans deserve to be mocked, but they basically lack a right to share the earth with Moslems. They are on earth by the kind permission and mercy of Moslems who magnanimously restrain themselves from removing the kafirs altogether. By mocking their legitimate overlords (the Moslems), kafirs lose their right to exist on earth. That is the Sunna, the example, of Mohammed.

In the TV episode, lawyer Douglas starts shouting, 'I was not debarred!' but no one hears him over the howls of bemused laughter. Mohammed discovered how effective laughing at one's opponents could be. He mocked all who didn't follow him, starting with the Jews, calling them sons of pigs and apes, and at other times calling them 'donkeys carrying the Taurat'. Mohammed refused to pronounce it 'Torah'. He distorted the names of people in the Bible as well, no doubt to make them sound funny. He told humiliating stories about Biblical heroes. Abraham had a humorous scrotal hernia. Talking rocks stole Abraham's clothes and ran away with them. Solomon bends over and overhears the language of ants. Trees, clouds and other objects in nature come alive and speak. Such imagery could come out of Tom and Jerry, but it is there in Mohammed's holy book revealed by his god, who only communicated with Mohammed. Mohammed also hired writers to lampoon his enemies in limericks. Mohammed could not take a joke at his own expense. No! Mohammed's narcissism was sacred! And poking fun at it was an unforgivable act of high treason punishable by death! He had writers assassinated who lampooned him.

Of course, as with other matters, Mohammed gave himself a monopoly on cartoons. He wanted his opponents to be unarmed in the matter of satirizing him...as do pious Moslems today. Today, Moslems claim the right to satirize Jews, Americans, the British, the Pope and anyone else. But no one may satirize them. Moslems place themselves and their collective offended narcissism above comment. To criticize Moslems is an act of high treason against our divinely-appointed overlords!

We are never told why Mohammed's narcissism needs defending more than another's narcissism. We are merely told that Mohammed taught his followers to defend his narcissism by assassinating critics...and that this is confirmed in Islamic law.

Since Moslems claim a monopoly on lampooning, Moslems expect to fight opponents whose two hands are tied behind their backs. They expect to control all debate, so no one talks back. They expect to behead all verbal critique of Islam by removing freedom of speech from our writers, teachers and politicians. They would behead kafirs societies by silencing their leaders who are charged with hearing, speaking and thinking for the benefit of the body politick. They would silence opposition to Islam with a slice of the scimitar of censorship! This is being done by violence and threats of violence.

Mohammed considered resistance to his censorship as unspeakable insolence that must be attacked with the utmost fury! Mohammed's narcissism would not bear the smallest slight. So he found a way to stop it. All laughter stops when a person picks up a knife. According to Mohammed, such murder pleases Allah.

When Mohammed sent out his followers armed with knives, the mockers stopped mockery in Arabia forever. Anyone who disagreed with Mohammed left the country immediately, leaving Mohammed in complete control of all communications.

Today Moslems still demand a monopoly on mockery, a monopoly on satire, a monopoly on cartoons. They want a safe position above the debate from which they can verbally lay into others. Islamic mockery goes only one way...towards the kafirs.

Mohammed's mockery of Christian doctrines was as satirical as his mockery of the Jews. Mohammed's slanders of Christianity are some of the worst examples of his cartooning! The easiest and most distinctive Christian doctrine to remember is that of the divine Trinity, three persons in one God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Rather than admit he understood the clearly worded message, Mohammed intentionally distorted it as 'Father, Mother Mary and Son of God'. He obviously knew Mary was not part of the Trinity. He knew what he was doing. He was drawing a cartoon in which he removed the Holy Ghost from the picture. The first cult object tossed from the Kaaba by Mohammed was an image of a dove, the symbol of the Holy Spirit.

Why was the Holy Ghost such a danger to Mohammed? Sometimes people reveal what frightens them by never mentioning what they fear! Mohammed never mentions the Holy Ghost. The gentle dove represents spiritual stillness, tameness and the Golden Rule. Their opposite qualities are activity, ferocity and opportunism. A world-conquering empire needed energetic warriors with the latter qualities, rather than contemplative Christian monks in a monastery preaching benevolence towards one's enemies.

Mohammed's ultimate mockery of Christians was to mock the Virgin Mary by flying to heaven and make her his bride. Mohammed became the father of all Christians. His mockery of Christians was then almost complete.

Practically everything Mohammed said about Christianity was a caricature and a distortion. In a final cartoon of Christianity, Mohammed claimed Jesus would return to betray and butcher his own followers and then break the crosses they possessed as the symbols of the Golden Rule! This is an astonishing cartoon caricature of everything Christians consider holy and a revelation of Mohammed's psychology of betrayal!

The worst part of Mohammed's cartoons is that not only is he caricaturing the original doctrines, but he then claims that his cartoon represents THE TRUE IMAGE of them! Jewish and Christian doctrines as defined by the Jews and Christians themselves are wrong! Only Mohammed's cartoons are THE TRUE doctrines.

No professional cartoonist would ever claim that! Cartoonists live enough in reality to know that their cartoons are highly exaggerated misrepresentations emphasizing a humorous aspect of events or personalities.

If Mohammed thought his cartoons were REAL, he had obviously left reality.

Koranic cartoons misrepresenting Jews, Christians and the pluralistic, cultured Arabs of Mohammed's day are not reality, but Mohammed's distorted comic strips, which Moslems have accepted as THE TRUTH ever since.

Mohammed could not tell the difference between a cartoon and reality...or at least he pretended not to, if it was in his own political interest. This makes Mohammed a cynical, scheming politician, rather than a sincere spiritual leader. Was he mad or a schemer?

Mohammed's cartoons of 'others' in the Koran are no more real than the evil and dehumanizing cartoons of Jews that appeared for 20 years in the Nazi propaganda newspaper, Der Stürmer. The purpose of these cartoons was the same as Mohammed's Koranic Kafir Kartoons ...to dehumanize the victims, make them out to be diseased animals and give Moslems the emotional freedom to treat these subhumans violently.

Bill Warner is Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. Contact him at bw@politicalislam.com and visit their website at http://www.politicalislam.com/

To Go To Top

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


Part 1: Professor Jerome A. Chanes

Professor Jerome A. Chanes, author of the award-winning A Dark Side of History: Anti-Semitism Through the Ages, among other books, spoke last night at the Fifth Ave. Synagogue in New York, on current antisemitism.

Humorous and perceptive, the scholar had insufficient time to do justice to his subject, though he strove mightily to make proper distinctions.

He explained that antisemitism is a reaction to broad events in society, events independent of what Jews do. Thus antisemitism has different motives at different times: religious, political, cultural, and racial. People like to hate. For instance, Chanes explained, If a sociologist asks Americans whether "the Jews" have too much power in the U.S., many will say "yes." But if the sociologist lists a couple of dozen major U.S. groups, Jews rank about the second from the bottom, thought to have too much power.

America never had much of the ingrained antisemitism in institutions of state power, as did Europe. Antisemitism here has waned with each generation. Jewish defense organizations, such as ADL, work hard to sway individuals from antisemitism. Chanes finds no proof that approach works. Prejudice is generational, each generation coming under the influence of its own times.

As a result, Jews have never been less disliked in America, nor have they ever felt less secure. Mr. Chanes did not get to explain his paradox, but he did mention the convergence of the new font of antisemitism, by the radical Muslims, with the new Left.

A popular misconception, we were told, is that antisemitism kept the Jews together. No, Jewish vitality did, Chanes asserts.

When is anti-Israel sentiment antisemitic? This question particularly riveted audience attention. Chanes defined ordinary criticism of some Israeli policies as not antisemitic. After all, Israelis themselves are divided over such policies. It is antisemitism when those criticisms extend to the legitimacy of the Jewish state and Jewish nationality, a legitimacy that the critics do not have for other ethnic groups [including the Palestinian Arabs, who are not a nationality and have current events but no separate history].

Elaborating, Chanes explained that driving that kind of antisemitism among non-Muslims in Europe is Europe's movement beyond nation states into international organizations. As a result, the pacifistic Europeans hate Israel and the U.S. for acting as nation states and defending themselves,

The speaker applied his sense of humor somewhat at my expense. I asked, "If Europeans hate Israel for being a nation state, why are they striving to bring into statehood the Palestinian Authority?"

He answered, "Richard, your mistake is in being logical." That reminds us that antisemitism is not logical but hysterical. I would explain European support for Palestinian Arabs both as appeasement of the Arabs and as driven by a hatred of Jewish statehood that exceeds their dislike for nation states in general.

My comment on the antisemitism promoted by Muslims in the Mideast and in Europe: Antisemitism was the preeminent principle of the Nazis. After all, during WWII, the Nazis gave priority to trains carrying Jews to extermination camps, and not to trains carrying troops to the hard-pressed German fronts. The Muslim Arabs have added Nazi-style antisemitism, a racist variety, to their religious antisemitism. When my critics call Israelis "Nazis," they use words as weapons of deceit rather than as conveyors of information. They seek to divert attention from the Nazi-like ideology of totalitarian Muslims, and the fact that the main Nazi book is a best-seller among the Arabs.

Part 2. Racial aspects

The scholar did not define "antisemitism" nor elaborate on its racial aspect. He quoted a humorous comment that antisemitism is hating Jews more than absolutely necessary. He acknowledges that it can hardly be defined, but a sensitive Jews knows it when he sees it.

Experts have explained that Islam started with antipathy toward Jews of that era, expanded that antipathy with blood libel and other features learned from European priests, and tinged their bigotry with Nazi racism. Nazi ideology, not just German opposition to colonial rule over the Arabs, was and is popular among the Arabs. The term, "racist," is so abused, that I usually avoid it.

A racist holds descendants responsible for crimes of their forebears generations earlier, and holds responsible a whole nation responsible for what may have been done by a small portion of that nation and not because of that nation's culture.

Nazism was indeed popular among Germans not purged by Hitler and inherent in their culture. Nazism had a theory of Jews being a race not fully developed except in evil. The mass-murdering Nazis, who dictated, warred, and looted, called other people evil! But contemporary Germans are much different and should not be judged the same.

It is even less fair to call contemporary Jews "Christ-killers" for what a small proportion of the nation was accused of doing, out of context of its culture, and anyway had no power to execute and did not execute, two thousand years ago.

The Islamist view extrapolates the religion's differences with a few Jews 1,400 years ago, into a genetically inherited plot to corrupt and conquer the world. They got that from the Nazis, who rely upon an antisemitic Czar having forged from a work of fiction not involving Jews, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That is racist.

An Austrian coined the word, "anti-Semite," as my series on Major Mideast Myths explains. (For start of the series, goto:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY- Israel-Conflict-Examiner~y2010m4d17-Major- Mideast-misconceptions--Introduction

He originated it to mean hatred of Jews, his sentiment. He did not include Arabs in that.

A persistent critic of mine misuses that word in two racist ways. First, he repeats the Arab excuse that Arabs are Semites and therefore cannot be antisemitic. "Semitic," however, is a language grouping. The critic is using the term as if designating a race. Of course, it is not logical, either, because some Jews are antisemites, too.

Second, that critic resurrects the genetically disproved theory that modern Jews are descended from Khazar converts in what became Russia. There was barely contact between the Jews of Europe and the converted Khazar rulers. The theory also fails to account for the half of Israelis expelled by the Arabs from their ancient Mideastern communities.

The critic suggests that modern Jews are not real Jews, because, he asserts incorrectly, they are not descended from them. However, Judaism recognizes converts. Therefore, the critic's view is racist, again. He relies on his mistaken notion of race, to claim that Khazar descendants never were in the Land of Israel. What a fantasy he must have, that the millions of Jews who dwelt in the European part of the Roman Empire, met and converted the Khazars, disappeared, and then the Khazars, whom the Russians conquered, moved into Europe, revering the Torah but not being, according to the critic, Jews!

Beware of critics who accept almost any canard against the Jews, and who, as this one does, makes up his own blood libels almost daily. For example, he accuses the Israelis of murdering masses of Arabs to take their land, and cites no specifics. The Arabs used to be satisfied with the whopper that Israel expelled the Arabs. The critic embellishes it. His creativity in falsity indicates design, a combination of the very deceit, ignorance, and racism that he accuses others of.


Part 1. Ten Statements

1. Upon signing the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act, President Obama said that the "loss" of Mr. Pearl "reminded us of how valuable a free press is." Actually, Pearl was kidnapped and beheaded for being a Jew. The murderer admitted it and made Pearl acknowledge his being Jewish. Obama talked out of context, and without the indignation warranted, as if avoiding condemning radical Muslim murders of Jews.

2. In June, 2009, Obama visited the Buchenwald death camp, used primarily for Jews. He mentioned "Jews" only once, instead using innocuous wording, such as "where people were deemed inhuman because of their differences."

3. Usually, presidents refer to this country's Judeo-Christian origin and tradition, but in his inaugural, he said, "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non believers." In January, 2009, he told the Saudis that we are "a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers." Note the odd sequence.

4. At Cairo in June, 2009, Obama used the self-serving Islamist estimate of 7 million. He said we have one of the largest Muslim populations in the world [actually no more than a few emirates have]. "The U.S. has about 6 million Jews. The 2007 Pew Research Center study estimates a U.S. Muslim population of about 1.8 million. A 2008 American Religious Identification Survey puts the figure even lower, at 1,349,000."

5. Obama equated the suffering of the Jews during the Holocaust with the recent suffering of Palestinian Arabs. [That compares victims of genocide with attempted perpetrators of genocide, who lost their property as a result, and whose fellow Arabs confiscated a greater amount of property from Jews]. He also equated the Arab situation with that of blacks during U.S. slavery and S. African apartheid, implying that this was Israel's fault.

6. Jerusalem should be a place for all faiths, Obama said. That is not fair. Israel has made it such, but when the Muslims ruled, it was not.

7. Also at Cairo, Obama referred to the Koran, the Christian Testament, and the Talmud, but only the first two as holy.

8. He named other countries that helped Haiti, but omitted Israel, which helped more than any of those others.

9. When Israel announced another step in the approval process for some housing in Jerusalem, breaking no agreement with the U.S., Obama used such words as "insult," "affront," and "condemn." He did not use such words for Iran's nuclear programs or oppression nor for the Palestinian Authority's indoctrinating in bigotry and naming places in honor of terrorists.

10. Obama let himself be photographed talking by phone with Israel's PM Netanyahu, showing the soles of his shoes, which to the Arabs signifies insult, in this case, to Netanyahu.

Some of the lesser incidents by themselves would not be troubling. However, they are part of a pattern. Obviously, Obama treats Muslims more considerately than Israelis.

Like Israel's virulent critic, Jimmie Carter, Obama has appointed Jews and held Jewish ceremonies. But Obama's appointees share his policies harmful for Israel (5/27/10 press release by Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member).

Let us not make the simple-minded, incorrect assumption that if someone is Jewish, he automatically is pro-Israel. Same for politicians who say they are pro-Israel. They may not mean it.

Part 2. Double standard

If Israel lobbied to expel the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) from the UN, would Obama ignore it? The P.A. lobbies to expel Israel from the UN and Obama does ignore it.

If Israel boycotted P.A. businesses, would Obama ignore it? The P.A. boycotts Israeli businesses in the Territories, and Obama ignores it.

If Israel declared that all Jewish terrorists convicted of attacking Arabs should be released, would Obama ignore it? The P.A. declares that all Arab terrorists convicted of attacking Israel should be released, and Obama ignores it.

Obama has a double standard, prejudiced against Israel. He lets the Arabs get away with every way by which they work against peace (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 5/27/10).


P.A. PM Fayyad gets undeserved credit? (AP/Tara Todras-Whitehill)

By now you may have heard that the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) in Judea-Samaria enjoyed economic growth of 8.5% last year. P.A. Prime Minister Fayyad got the credit for it.

The international monetary fund, however, gives the credit to increased foreign aid. There has not been much private investment representing real growth. Funds pumped in account for the real estate boom in Ramallah (IMRA, 5/27/10).


Iran and Russia have had their wars and other differences over the centuries. Many times in recent years, Russia saved Iran from UN sanctions, and has helped Iran's military industry. Iranian dissembling, however, has made Russia look foolish for it. Finally, Russia got the most recent UN sanctions watered down, and then approved them.

That was not good enough for Iran's President Ahmadinejad. He warned Russia to think carefully before crossing a great nation such as Iran. He said that if Russia persisted, Iran would consider it an enemy.

Russian President Medvedev told Ahmadinejad to stop his demagoguery. A specialist told Reuters that Ahmadinejad was attempting to blame his problems on others (IMRA, 5/27/10).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, May 28, 2010.

Ehud Barak, aka; the coward of Lebanon, seems to only be able to wage war against Yeshivah students and their Rabbis. His hysterical, middle-of-the-night withdrawal from Lebanon succeeded in elevating a rag-tag street gang into international prominence. It is petty, incompetent bunglers like Barak that offer the greatest and most self evident proof for the existence of G-D. If Israel, and the rest of the world as well, were actually run by these low lifes, the world would not last till the end of the day.

This a news brief from Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).


Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau said Friday that Defense Minister Ehud Barak caused harm to Israel when, as prime minister, he ordered Israeli troops out of Lebanon. Interviewed by Arutz Sheva television in Hebrew on the 10th anniversary of the pullout (finished on May 24, 2000, the 19th of Iyar on the Hebrew calendar), the Yisrael Beiteinu lawmaker noted the way it left depicted the Israel Defense Forces as fleeing for their lives from Hizbullah terrorists, leaving them equipment and making the South Lebanese Army look abandoned.

Asked why Barak is proud of the retreat, Landau asked, "Do you want him to come and admit all his mistakes publicly, as well as the heavy price the people have paid because of them? He's a politician, and not every politician admits his mistakes."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Robin Ticker, May 28, 2010.

This was written by Nadia Matar of Women in Green. Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their email address is wfit2@womeningreen.org and their website address is


I was happy to read the reports in the media on Wednesday, May 26, 2010, that dozens of lecturers from the Hebrew University set out with hundreds of their students on a march to the "Sheikh Jarah" (Shimon Hatzaddik) neighborhood in Jerusalem "to demonstrate against the entry of Jewish settlers to the neighborhood and the removal of Arab families from their homes."

The photographs accompanying the reports show the demonstrators with signs such as: "Students and Lecturers against Settlements," "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's House," and the like.

According to the report on Ynet, during the course of the procession the students and the lecturers voiced calls such as "We will not sit in classrooms when, outside, rights are being trampled" and "Civil rights will not be taught with racism in Sheikh Jarah." They also bore banners stating, among others (in a slogan that rhymes in Hebrew), "There Is No Sanctity in an Occupied City."

The report quotes various lecturers who explain why they came to demonstrate:

Dr. David Tsafti, a lecturer in genetics: "I don't agree to the expulsion of families from their homes. They say that the houses belong to Jews, and maybe that is correct, but it certainly isn't right [...] people have lost the ability to see Arabs as human beings."

[Interestingly, five years ago Dr David Tsafti was not seen demonstarting against the expulsion of our brothers from Gush Katif...but let's go on to the next lecturer]

Ruti Bettler, a professor of education, said that she has been active in this struggle [against Jews settling in Jerusalem's neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah] for a long time. "The attempt to expel these families from their homes is an injustice in the human and moral plane." [She too somehow, who is active on behalf of Arab squatters in homes they grabbed and stole from the original Jewish owners, did not decry the expulsion of Jews from their real homes.]

Let's go on to the next leftist professor quoted in the article:

Professor Tamar Rappaport said that no less than 10 lecturers in education came to the demonstration. "Word of the demonstration went though the social networks and [e-]mails, and reached people. In the final analysis, lecturers, too, are people, and in this land it's impossible not to be political." She made clear that the lecturers did not come to the demonstration in the name of the university, and rather were speaking for themselves, but she emphasized: "I think that the struggle of Sheikh Jarah is closely connected with academy."

The professor of anthropology Yoram Bilu told that during all his years in academe, he did not encounter such a broad and diverse response by lecturers and students for such cooperation."

You'll be surprised to hear this, but I am very glad that such a demonstration was held by the left. For years we have been trying to persuade teachers, educators, and rabbis in our national camp that it is inconceivable that they and their students would not be involved, even during study hours, in the struggle for Eretz Israel.

During the Oslo period I attempted to persuade teachers to join the demonstrations against the Oslo accords, together with their students, during study times, as well. How is it possible to continue to study when the house is on fire, we told them? And likewise during the period of the expulsion from Gush Katif and northern Samaria, and likewise right now: when the Arabs, who are financed by international bodies, are stealing and grabbing thousands of dunams of state lands, tens of thousands of yeshivah students in the state-religious or hardal (semi-ultra-Orthodox) religious educational institutions continue with routine life as usual, continue to study in air-conditioned study halls — as if there were no physical war, on the ground, for the land. Don't misunderstand me. I am not calling to stop Torah study, or any other study, but I am calling to combine study with the actual struggle on the ground, as I will explain in detail below with practical examples.

Once I also tried to persuade Bnei Akiva counselors to organize setting up new me'ahazim (outpost settlements), or to distribute informational material against the Oslo accords and for Eretz Israel as a whole. In all these instances described above we were confronted by the same puzzling response: "It is forbidden for us and our members to participate in "political" activity."

Now, after dozens of Hebrew University lecturers, who publicly proclaimed their views, unabashedly participated in a demonstration by the left, I want to hope that in our camp, as well, educators, rabbis, teachers, lecturers, and their students will begin to arise and go out to defend Eretz Israel, on the ground.

Ideas for action:

  1. Each yeshivah, each school, each ulpanah (girls' seminary) will adopt hilltops in Judea and Samaria, where they will organize rosters of a permanent Jewish presence to defend the lands that will remain in Jewish hands. They will plant trees, and also erect buildings, even if only simple ones, where they will engage in their studies.

  2. Each yeshivah, each school, each ulpanah, from the Gush Dan area, too, will adopt a me'ahaz (outpost) in Judea and Samaria. The students and teachers will aid that me'ahaz, by a duty roster, several times a week, aiding in agriculture, construction, and maintaining a Jewish presence. On Shabbatot, as well, come to the place and make a connection.

  3. In the event, Heaven forbid, of the destruction of structures, studies will not be held on that day, and all the teachers and students from the schools, the yeshivot, and the ulpanot, and the youth movement members from the area, will come to aid in restoring the ruins and rebuilding everything anew.

    These, of course, are just examples of the activity that, in my humble opinion, should be adopted by all the teachers and students in the national educational institutions. The message is clear. As was said in the demonstration by the leftists: "We will not sit in classrooms when, outside, rights are being trampled." We are waiting for our educators to tell their students: "We will not sit in classrooms and study halls when, outside, the rights of Eretz Israel and the rights of the Jews are being trampled. We will continue our studies — but they will be combined with action on behalf of Eretz Israel."

Robin Ticker writes: "This email is L'Ilui Nishmat Yisrael ben David Aryeh ob"m (Izzy Kaplan) a great activist and lover of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichrono Baruch." Contact her at faigerayzel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jaff Sassani, May 27, 2010.

Jaff Sassani from the Sassanian Kurd Defense Committee (KDC) writes

We are about three million people in Iran and Iraq. Our people are called the "Jaff" we are originally Sassanian people. We are acceptable by the Persian and Kurds people and other Iranian nations because of our origin.

We are looking for strategical alliance with the Jewish people around the world and in Israel. We believe by uniting our people with the Jewish people will be beneficial for both side.

We are hoping to Unite our Iranian nations under one umbrella to be called the Aryan (Iranian) Economic Union (AU) with strong relation and cooperation with the Western countries and Israel. The detail will be explained when we find the interest of our Idea.

Read more about them here.



True or mythological, the story of the blacksmith Kaveh goes back to an era before The Medes and Sassanian Empires.

Kaveh led a popular uprising against the foreign demon-like ruler Dahag (Modern Iranian: Zahhak). Using the blacksmith's leather apron on a spear as a flag, Kaveh lead the Aryan people to destroy Zahhak, the Arab tyrant who unjustly ruled over the Aryan people's lands.

The founder of the Sassanian Empire was the Great Spirit and tireless son of the Aryan people, Ardashir Sassani. Once more the flag of the blacksmith Kaveh was used. Sassani used this flag as his own, as a symbol to liberate and build an independent country for the Aryan nation.

We hope that someday the Aryan people will once again come together to form a united front, similar to the Europeans union. Every Aryan nation should have the freedom to form the country and Government for themselves separately. Instead of trying to destroy each other, we should try to help each other to form a free country like those in Europe so that we can live with each other in peace. Racism will cause divisions, no matter whether it is Persian racism, Kurdish racism, Afghani racism or any other Aryan racism.

Considering and accounting for each others interests, will bring the Aryan people together and get us united. The many languages used in Europe have not stood in the way as they form a solid European union. We, the Aryan people, have languages very similar to one another; it should be much easier for us to get united.

We have a lot of powerful enemies, like families from the Islamic Sayed, with Arabic origins and Turks. They would not like to see us united. That is why they work to inject division among us. The Sassanian Empire was an independent Aryan country that followed the Zoroastrians religion. It was not solely a Persian country. Even Ferdawsi are questionable. Those who follow the racist Persian policy are enemies of the Aryan people without any doubt.

It is possible that Shitte Islamic Sayeds or Turks injected this racist belief among the Aryan people to keep them from becoming united forever. But enemies of the Aryan peoples plans are useless because the Aryan people are much more knowledgeable and smarter than they are.

The Aryan people's eyes were truly opened following the Islamic revolution of Iran. Sayed Allotola Komani's, along with his disciples, ruled as a tyrant and abused many. They are no longer accepting the propaganda and they are not getting fooled in the name of Shitte any more. There is hope for a better future and happier days for the Aryan people.

Contact the Jaff Sassani by email at jaff.skdc@gmail.com or visit their website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, May 27, 2010.

We respond to Isi Leibler's article in the Jerusalem Post — November 25, 2009 which asks this question: "Why does so much of the world hate us?"

We think what we have to say here in response to the JP article synchronizes with the views so brilliantly articulated by David Solway in his editorial "The Jewish Intellectual Predicament" — FrontPageMag.com May 27, 2010.

We are the Secular Christians for Zion. We believe there are many answers to Isi Liebler's question: Here's some of our thoughts:

1) You ask for hatred whenever a Jew plaintively cries "Why does so much of the world hate us?" because this question rings a bell in the minds of people who would nor ordinarily think to hate you and so they prick up their ears out of curiosity and search in all the wrong places for answers that very question and of course they find your enemy's propaganda instead of your own. Therefore a small part of this animosity toward Israel reposes with Jews who have failed, utterly, to develop and passionately express effective propaganda to rebut the insults contrived by the Islamics.

Instead, you produce reams of yackety-yak by prominent Israeli in-tell-leck-shu-alls who write boring tracts in rebuttal to the scurrilous accusations contrived against Israel. Like the dullest of pedants they carefully recite, paragraph after paragraph and word for word, the spurious accusations against Israel and then analyze them for paragraphs more. Worse still, these well-meaning bores are prone to conclude their magnum opus with so few words in defense of Israel — and these in phrases so coldly dispassionate and so tediously logical — that an uninformed reader will more often than not come away with the feeling that Israelis are actually confessing their guilt. The unintended consequence of this Hebraic intellectualism has been most unfortunately reinforced by Israel's peculiar leadership who repeatedly offer to make "painful concessions" for "peace" — words uttered not by the righteous and never by the virtuous but rather by persons who are necessarily presumed to be "down, dirty, and guilty-as-sin." What else would explain why a Jew would offer tribute to those who profess to despise them? Which begs another question: Do you really believe that your God commands Jews to offer "mitzvahs" to those who slaughter your children and stone your unarmed countrymen? (If so, its no wonder that people are so readily persuaded that you've got more than a screw loose, in which case they will feel not just tempted but rather entitled to take advantage of you.)

2) Then you have amongst you a large cadre of frightened Jews who are quick to agree with their Islamic accusers in order to dissipate their fear of receiving a thrashing at the hands of their clever enemies. They suffer from what we refer to as the "running Jew" syndrome and their trembling faints invite the very attacks they hope to avoid. We suspect these Jews whom you refer to as "leftists" are at bottom glued to each other in fear. And their fears might very well be justified because Israel's leadership has been, at least during their lifetimes, such a profound and unsettling disappointment.

Ever since Israel defeated its enemies in 1967 and thereafter proudly relinquished their gains and abandoned their hard-fought advantages with such bravura displays of foolishness, the "running Jew" cadre has had every right to fear that their leaders are either corrupt or else nuts and hence willing to sacrifice their brethren for the sake of self-aggrandizement. Shimon Peres' ridiculous behavior turns the stomach of all who observed him simpering over Yasser Arafat even as Arafat's myriad goon gangs slaughtered Israeli women and children. Peres' response? He kissed his "dear little arab" and clutched him even closer to his sagging bosoms. How many Jews were aware that while Arafat's goon-gangs paraded through the streets of Jerusalem that Peres and Arafat were planning to do business together through their respective Cayman Islands tax haven corporate-NGO nominees?

3) Jewish hypersensitivity to criticism: Instead of responding to Euroid slurs with a loud "How DARE You!" the Jew, embodied in the personae of such senile old men as Sharon and the ever-plumping Ehud Barak, are prone to crouch down and then with rounded backs meekly offer to make "painful concessions" for "peace" with the arab squatters occupying Israel's lands. This knee-jerk psychological self-mutilation has encouraged the Islamics to hate Jews even more because arabs despise weakness even more than they fear power. Jews who offer "painful concessions" in the hope of parading "superior sensitivity to civilities" and who lack the will to confront their bullies invite disrespect instead of admiration. And once disrespect sets in, it can swiftly resolve into loathing. In short, far too many Jews give the impression that they are willing to rush to the cross and nail themselves up in order to forestall their enemies from dispensing worse punishment.

4) Jews have little or no experience when it comes to acquiring and then holding onto land. Islamics, on the other hand, have over a thousand years of experience when it comes to taking land and subjugating the natives. How do you think Abdullah grabbed almost the entire Arabian Peninsula for himself? By the wages of terrorism and wholesale slaughter of anyone who stood in his way, that's how!

5) We beg to differ with your opinion that Europeans have abandoned their "nationalism". To the contrary, the Euroids remain as nationalistic as ever. Have you forgotten how the UK bashed Argentina (with US support) in order to retain ownership and control of the Falkland Islands? Have you forgotten how Spain sent warships to evict a few arabs from the disputed island known as "Perejil" (to the Spaniards) and "Leila" to the Moroccans? And are you unaware of the fact that Spain refuses to cede even so much as an inch of its lands to the Basque?

6) Jews mistake their own mental laziness for enlightenment when they refer to every arab occupying the region between the ocean and the sea as a "palestinian". We shouldn't have to be the ones to remind Jews that the only true Palestinian is a Jew. The Islamics are fakers and false takers. Israelis should have declared so years ago. And all Jews, in unison, should have loudly reminded the Euroids that Jews also have "rights of return" to the lands from which they were driven by the arabs when Israel became a nation in 1948. Truly, more Jews were forced to become refugees and to flee for their lives than the arabs who now claim, without any proof, that they were "driven" from the remnant of Jewish Palestine that became the tiny nation of Israel.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the SC4Z!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Shelley R. Neese, May 27, 2010.

It's 1979. Iran's monarchy lay somewhere between impotency and total collapse. The Islamic Revolution rolls full steam ahead as one of the largest protest movements in history. Millions take to the streets in anti-Shah demonstrations throughout Iran. On January 17, the Shah and the rest of the Pahlavi dynasty flee the country. Two weeks later, exiled Revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini returns to Iran from Paris; millions of cheering well-wishers greet him at the airport. In a matter of ten short days the Ayatollah and his Revolutionaries overwhelm the last military forces loyal to the monarchy, ushering in the Islamic Republic.

Hundreds of American and Israeli citizens in Iran evacuate during the February chaos. Key Embassy officials are an exception. Their governments fear that if they completely jump ship, their countries will never be allowed back. The remaining personnel at the American and Israeli Embassies hunker down and wait for Khomeini's next move.

On February 10, Revolutionaries holding a political demonstration call for an end to the Israeli presence in Iran. Thousands of political demonstrators, chanting "Death to Israel, Long live Arafat," march to the nearby Israeli Embassy. According to Ronen Bergman in his book The Secret War with Iran, before the mob climbs over the walls and surround the building, the Israelis inside set fire to the few documents remaining. Most of the classified files were mailed back to Israel months ago. Personnel narrowly escape out the back gate, as the mob storms the embassy. Looting is rampant. The Israeli flag is torched. But, they are too late to take hostages or find intelligence.

Later that day, Yasser Arafat, visiting Iran as the first foreign "head of state," gives a speech from the Israeli Embassy's balcony, declaring it the new headquarters for the Palestinian Liberation Organization. "Under the Ayatollah's leadership," Arafat announces, "we will free Palestine!"

The deposed Israeli diplomats hide in Tehran apartments for a week until they secretly board a plane with eight hundred evacuating Americans.

Fast forward nine months. The plight of the American Embassy is a story much more familiar. Diplomats remain in Tehran on the principle that the U.S. should not evacuate on its own accord. The State Department assures employees that everything is "perfectly safe." On November 4, 1979, a group of Iranian students and militants seize the compound. Calling themselves the "Muslim student followers of the Imam," they take fifty-three American staffers hostage, parading them in front of news cameras bound and blindfolded.

The marauding Iranian students find a treasure trove of classified documents, many destroyed through a one-way shredder. They form teams to gather all the shreds and spend the next two years reassembling them. They publish sixty-five volumes of classified documents from what Khomeini referred to as the "American spy den."

Consider for a moment the very different fates of both embassies.

On that February day, when the Israelis heard boots marching, they ran for their lives and incinerated their secrets. Nine months later, when buses of Iranian demonstrators arrived at the American embassy, they met zero resistance. The Marine security guards were armed but refused to use force. According to the testimony of William J. Daughtry — an American hostage — one security guard announced he was going to "reason" with the mob. Shortly after, Daughtry spotted him blindfolded with the rest.

In the throes of Khomeini's Iran, the Americans took little caution in improving the vulnerable security situation at the American compound. This is especially surprising considering that Revolutionaries had taken over the Embassy once before on February 14, 1979. Embassy personnel were held hostage for several hours in what became know as the St. Valentine's Day Open House. That event foreshadowed worse things to come.

Even as the mob took over every Embassy office, the Americans requested Iranian police or military to intervene for their protection. The Americans assumed up to the bitter end that Iran would abide by international law that says embassies are sovereign space and diplomats are immune from arrest. Khomeini never got that memo.

The Islamic Revolution took most of the world by surprise, including Western intelligence agencies. Israel's Ambassador to Iran, Uri Lubrani, was one of the few who predicted the fall of the Shah. In a letter to Prime Minister Begin in June 1978, he warned that the Shah's regime would collapse within two to three years. In the fall of 1978, the Central Intelligence Agency informed President Carter there was no chance of the monarchy collapsing. The CIA assessed that Iran was "not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation." According to predictions of the 1978 National Intelligence Estimate, the Shah would rule for another decade. Such estimates are a risky way of deciding business when it comes to Iran.

America hoped the Revolutionary shakeup was an internal Iranian issue; the State Department thought if they kept a low profile then the anti-American rhetoric would blow over. The Israelis in the Embassy ran and hid because they took the enemy at their word. When crowds chanted "death to the Jews," they assumed they meant exactly that. As a result, the Israelis had a close shave but they came out unscratched. The Americans, for their part, got a black eye and a 444-day hostage crisis.

The Iran of 2010 is on a path to nuclear armament. The Western world has been unable to stop or even stall these aspirations. Israel is taking Iran at its word and understands what's at stake. The U.S. is assuming benevolence, taking no heed to Iran's continued apocalyptic threats and diplomatic obstinance. The writing, however, is on the wall, literally. The former American Embassy, now housing Revolutionary Guards, is covered in Anti-American graffiti. A skeletal Statue of Liberty is spray painted along one wall with a scrawled message that translates "We will make America face a severe defeat." This time will America listen?

Shelley Neese is the managing editor of The Jerusalem Connection. Visit the website at

To Go To Top

Posted by David Frankfurter, May 27, 2010.

After decades of milking the European public to fund a corrupt and violent Palestinian regime, while deliberately keeping the average Palestinian in poverty, the cycle has started again.

With the Palestinians supposedly " proximal" to the peace table, Abbas has decided to ignore his responsibilities to peace, to his own people and to wise fiscal management. He has also decided to ignore the dire situation of the taxpaying public of his European sponsors — and sidestep the fact that whenever under Israeli " occupation" the Palestinian areas have grown economically, and whenever under Palestinian "resistance" they have declined.

Abbas has declared "voluntary" (under pain of traditional Palestinian punishments) unemployment for the 20,000 or so Palestistians gainfully employed in industries in Israeli communities — at a self estimated cost of $50m which he assumes/demands will be paid for by the European taxpayer. (Read about it here:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/ pa-plans-50-million-fund-to-help-palestinians-boycott- settlements-1.292555)

I would have thought that Europe has enough unemployment problems, without taking on new voluntary or political unemployed.

I would also have thought that the Americans would consider this as deliberate sabotage of the so-called "proximity" peace talks.

I would have also thought that after various "goodwill gestures" by the Israelis at Palestinian and US insistence, the Israeli negotiating team must be wondering if they are just wasting their time — and have once again been tricked by a duplicitous Palestinian leadership.

David Frankfurter is a business consultant, corporate executive and writer who frequently comments on the Middle East. To subscribe to his 'Letter from Israel', email him at david.frankfurter@iname.com. Or go to http://www.livejournal.com/users/dfrankfurter/ This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, May 27, 2010.

At times, it is the outside observer who sees the obvious, yet those engrossed in the details fail to see the larger picture. Observations rather than being characterized as "lucid" are viewed as "rancid;" systems are adverse to change. Thus, even the most astute observations are neither incorporated in the decision making process nor translated into necessary action.

In the 18th Knesset, ministerial positions were determined by bazaar-like negotiations on which the formation of a coalition government was dependent. These perks, paid by Israel and her citizens, are the price for a faulty electoral system. Among the many ministers and their deputies, aides, assistants, relatives and other salary-getters, there are two in particular who are likely candidates to lead the current process of fighting delegitimization of the Jewish State:

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) led by Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Liberman and the Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs led by Minister Yuli-Yoel Edelstein.

The MFA has representatives throughout the world in embassies, consulates and local offices. As a body, it could be most useful in presenting Israel's position. Since humanitarian aid to Gaza has been a hot topic since, at the very least, December, 2008, when Israel embarked on Operation Cast Lead, the MFA has had a year and a half during which not only to "formulate a response" but to put such a plan (or plans) into action.

Every week the IDF puts out a summary of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Every foreign journalist receives a copy from the Prime Minister's Government Press Office (GPO). The GPO acts under the guidance of the Ministry of Public Diplomacy. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that despite arguments that the IDF's or GPO's dispatches are mere propaganda, the fact that 30,920 trucks containing 800,000 tons of supplies were transferred into Gaza during 2009 would not be lost on those reporting from Israel. At the very least, a reputable journalist could venture out to the field and attempt to verify the information or discredit the disseminator.

Other facts, like the 3,676 trucks that went from Israel to the Gaza Strip with 48,000 tons of food products, 40,000 tons of wheat, 2,760 tons of rice, 1,987 tons of clothes and footwear, 553 tons of milk power and baby food all during the first quarter of 2010 (January to March), cannot be hidden. These are simply too many truck trips. It is simply too large a quantity to be left in a warehouse or a field and disappear unnoticed.

Moreover, anyone visiting Gaza and seeing the flourishing trade there, the abundance of products in the markets and restaurants or even the active nightlife will be wondering about the real propaganda being used against Israel.

Then again, it is easier to falsely accuse, as long as the accusation sounds bad and damaging enough to Israel's reputation. As far removed from reality as they may be, false attacks and their wide and warm reception reflect the world's eagerness to believe the worst about the Jewish State, no verification needed.

While Hamas' Charter calls for the destruction of Israel and its operations are sponsored and supported by the Iranian regime, Israel is good for the Gazans. During 2009, 10,544 residents along with twelve thousand accompanying individuals were transferred to Israel to receive medical treatment. Likewise, there were 382 emergency evacuations from Gaza for medical purposes. Also last year, 7.5 million flowers and 54 tons of strawberries were exported from Gaza.

Admittedly, these figures are provided by the IDF spokesperson's office, although they are easily verifiable. "Israel is putting stickers 'made in Gaza' to avert the world's scrutiny of the real genocide she is committing" will say the enemies. They may add: "How can the poor Gazans grow flowers, when Israel has been thirsting the Palestinians for 62 years, preventing them from fresh, running water?"

Since journalists can travel to and from Gaza, they can check for themselves. Alas, there is only one small issue: If their reports are not liked by Hamas, they can either be executed while in Gaza or the next time they enter. Truth (thus reporting) is a risky proposition in this part of the world.

Several weeks ago plans were announced for a sailing of another in a series of humanitarian aid convoys to Gaza. Promises were made that Israel's blockade will be broken at all cost. Hundreds of human rights activists gathered in Turkey for a journey to "Gaza under Siege," willing to sacrifice their freedom so that the Gazans will not starve.

Alas, the Gazans are not starving for food nor is there any real need for medical assistance, water or electricity or even construction materials. All are supplied by Israel. There are limits, though, on what may pass into Gaza, for the Gazans have used certain materials to build and improve rockets, explosives and other terror-related means.

I marked my calendar for Monday, May 24th, the official sail date of the mission. It is not the first time that such a mission sets sail toward Gaza. These missions are most effective: If they are allowed to reach Gaza, the participants are viewed as victors. If anything happens to them, if Israel boards the vessels and takes control or worse, if anyone gets hurt, Israel is seen as the aggressor.

This time, however, Turkey vowed to retaliate if Israel does any harm to the journey of the "peace activists" and "humanitarians." Israel responded that any humanitarian aid can be offloaded in the Port of Ashdod or in Egypt and passed by land into Gaza according to the guidelines set forth which maximize transfer to those who really need the aid (rather than be hijacked for profits or other motives) while minimizing the usage for terror purposes.

A group of Israeli boat owners have — of their own volition and initiative — decided to set sail to meet the incoming "Messengers of Peace." The official government response was congratulatory, although officials kept emphasizing the counter-sail is a private initiative. Minister Edelstein said, "the answer was given by citizens who I am not clear if they belong to the right or the left, but certain these are people who did not forget what is Zionism. When there is unity and we understand the hypocrisy, the goal has been reached."

Israel seems to want to distance herself from necessary action. Thus, private individuals or NGOs have to take charge. Will Israel's culpability or liability differ any if she takes the lead? On the contrary, it would be most beneficial, for Israel will send a strong message: WE TAKE A STAND. It is easier, instead, to let the others do the work.

Yigal Palmor, the Spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has repeated Israel's invitation for the organizers of the "humanitarian attempt to breach the blockade" to use the land crossings, in the same manner as all reputable international organizations. However, he states "they are engaging in political propaganda and not in pro-Palestinian aid."

Palmor reiterated, "If the organizers were truly interested in providing humanitarian aid — as opposed to engaging in publicity stunts — they would use the proper channels to ensure delivery of any supplies."

So what do we have? A private initiative, an IDF data sheet and a MFA interview. After the ships sailed on their wanted collision course, activity from Israel has intensified. "Suddenly" fact sheets are being provided, interviews are being given, information supportive of Israel's claims disseminated. The GPO even sent out a list of recommended restaurants in Gaza and others followed suit.

Guess who is going to gain more credence, Israel's last-minute attempt at a reply or the organizers now on the way to Israel? Who will emerge with an upper hand from this repeated exercise? Who will perfect their modus operandi for the next attempt to breach the "blockade?" Who will eventually win this public diplomacy war?

For those in doubt — it will not be Israel. Success will not happen miraculously when procrastination has characterized the response. In fact, why even bother after the vessels have already set sail? Defense Minister Barak has already advised several Foreign Ministers, including those of Ireland, Cyprus and Greece (under whose flags some vessels are sailing) that the Israeli Navy will prevent access.

Possibly one should study what has prompted Israel's waking up at all? I am reminded of a time not that long ago that Judge Goldstone was in Israel "researching" (or more correctly conjuring findings). His stay did not warrant an equally forceful plan of action until after his report was published and caused major damage in its detached-from-reality conclusions.

For those in America who have had a taste of what is happening on university campuses, the situation is similar. Our enemies have used the guise of "free speech" and "academic freedom" to hijack our system to attack Israel and prevent free speech from anyone not in agreement with their radical agenda.

The response? Organizations like Stand With Us are doing the work, individuals from Israel come to speak, but this is the job of the MFA and the Ministry of Public Diplomacy. They, apparently, were quite surprised when the Israeli Ambassador to the USA was not as welcomed during a speech he attempted to give at the University of California Irvine. Alas, like the current sailing, it was not the first, nor the last occurrence.

There are many capable, thinking persons in Israel. "Formulating a response" or "coming up with a coherent approach" should have been concluded long ago. It was time for action not for academic discussions while Israel is being beaten and defeated on the public diplomacy front.

The time is long past for the official echelons in Israel, the Government and the Israel Defense Forces to PROTECT ISRAEL. To do so, Israel taught the world, one must go on the offensive.

There is no time to be waste. Israel must regroup and attack. Clearly she will be able to do an amazing work if she only sets her heart and mind to the task. Israelis were able to come up with microscopic cameras to travel the human body's blood vessels, devised drip irrigation, developed vaccines and medications and are working on the forefront of discoveries that will continue to benefit humanity. They must now focus some of that same ingenuity and creativity to defend their nation.

If Israelis do not rise to this challenge, there may one day no longer be a country for Jews around the world to call their home. Sadder yet, the words "never again" once again fall on deaf ears, and the world is eager to witness another Holocaust as the job of exterminating the Jews was abruptly stopped 65 years ago but has finally resumed.

In the series "Postcards from Israel — Postcards from America," Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, an Israel visitors rarely discover Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, May 27, 2010.

President Barack Hussein Obama seems to be an anomaly — in the general scheme of politics. We know that Obama has no military experience but, those he chose to advise him supposedly have both the military expertise and the global experience as high ranking political players from past regimes. It has been observed that Obama and family have a repugnance for the American military, political speeches of approval notwithstanding.

In the lore of political history, when leaders are losing the confidence of their people, starting or participating in wars has often been the preferred method of maintaining power. The people at large are generally loath to change rulers just before or during a war. There are several reasons why a war would be beneficial to the Obama regime and his currently dominant Democratic Party. Note that the upcoming November mid-term elections already show a high probability of the Democrats losing control of Congress and their 'right' to spend without restraint.

Unfortunately, Obama has shown that he is not competent to lead or protect America from normally occurring disasters, whether they are financial meltdowns, natural or man-made disasters like the oil contaminating the Gulf of Mexico, or from a nuclear-armed rogue state such as Iran or North Korea or the Taliban in Pakistan....

His deliberate bumbling to stop Iran from going nuclear within a very few months is reminiscent of a second-rate prize fighter agreeing to take a dive in a certain round.

Obama's advisors are "experienced" in making threats for public consumption but, dealing under the table to insure they would never have to live up to their bluster.

We have observed Obama and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, bluster about how they will pressure Iran to behave and not to advance their nuclear plans. But when Iran ignores every threat with impunity, Obama shifts the blame over to Israel.

As Muslims around the globe attack every outpost of the West, including their infiltration of radica Muslims Terrorists into democratic nations' areas of vulnerability and influence, Obama and his cohorts find ways to blame Israel.

While Israel is barely a dot on the map of the Middle East and Obama is representing the world's major Super-Power, he genuflects in Muslim style to a people who pledge to make America adopt Islam as part of their goal for a Global Caliphate. In addition, as always, the radical Islamist Muslims proclaim they will wipe the Jewish Nation/State of Israel off the map — with fire.

Obama gets daily briefings on the advanced state of weaponry accumulated by Iran and Syria who duly pass much of it on to Hezb'Allah (now a controlling hostile force in Lebanon) and Hamas (ready to begin a Third Intifada in Israel). Much of these weapons' systems originate in Russia or China and North Korea.

But, Obama bows, scrapes and genuflects to all of these nations while attacking Israel's right to defend herself. Obama even has top ranked General Keith Dayton training the Muslim Palestinian paramilitary forces to attack Israel when the time comes. Let's not forget Egypt's recent war-game exercises called "Badr 2010", where the targeted enemy was known to be Israel — despite the supposed Camp David peace treaty. ["Badr" refers to the first military victory of Mohammed in 624 CE which damaged Meccan prestige and established Islam as a viable force. (1)]

Many experts in analyzing the prospects for imminent war are deeply aware that Iran and Syria are preparing for all out war, using their proxies of Hezb'Allah and Hamas to start the action. Obama must know this but, to protect his political behind here in America, he has sent some minor munitions to Israel so he can brag: "See, I am protecting Israel as I promised."

Reports coming in speak of three American aircraft flotillas heading toward a position off the coast of Iran. The next questions:

Are there orders to attack Iran's Nuclear facilities or to strike a potential Israeli attack formation, claiming that America is keeping the peace?

Is Obama to be trusted with the life or death of Israel?

I personally would not trust Obama and his advisors — like James Baker III, Zbigniew Brzezinski, or any of his court Jews, such as Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod with any semblance of protection for a Jewish ally.

Note! This lack of trust does not apply to the American people or the American Congress, who have demonstrated that they are stalwart allies and supporters of Israel.

Regrettably, the American government is filling up with Arabists whose loyalties lie with hostile Arab nations who just happen to be sitting on pools of oil.

If there is a war this summer between Israel vs. Iran, Syria, Hezb'Allah, Hamas, the pertinent questions are:

1. Whose side will the Obama Arabists stand with?

2. Will Israeli aircraft on their way to strike Iranian Nuclear facilities be attacked by American aircraft — as demanded by Zbigniew Brzezinski?

3. Will General Dayton's trained Muslim Palestinian fifth column be ordered to attack Israeli soldiers and hit civilian targets?

4. Will Congress be forced to move to impeach President Obama as a clear and present danger to America and to America's allies?

Therefore, is Obama's intention, on advice from his Arabist advisors to rescue Israel when it no longer exists or is too weak from inside attacks to resist surrender in compliance with Obama's Middle East plans to assist the Muslims' declared goal of a Global Caliphate?

The next questions are:

1. Will Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu accept these results?

2. Will Netanyahu be tricked?

3. Would Obama, in linkage with the Muslim Arabs dare to attempt to take over Israel with such a ruse?


(1.) "Battle of Badr" (Islamic History) Britannica Online Encyclopedia

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 Rock Peters, May 27, 2010.

To see and hear the 9/11 memorial music video "Lady Liberty" go to www.youtube.com/keepsafe2da

A mosque on the hallowed earth of Ground Zero would absolutely be sacrilegious; even the thought of putting a mosque near the site of 9/11 mass murder is such a complete outrage, so vile an obscenity that it truly offends all human sensibilities.

May the blood of the innocent victims of the September 11th MUSLIM terrorist attack on America cry out to the Lord:


Yours in Liberty,
Rock Peters

Rock Peters is an author, songwriter, poet and patriot. His multimedia website — www.godsaveusa.com — is dedicated to fighting Muslim terrorism. It is both factual and attractive. Contact him at rockpeters@aol.com

To Go To Top

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


Judea-Samaria is largely undeveloped (A.P./Mohammed Ballas)

The Jews in Judea-Samaria are preparing to host up to half a million Israelis, in case of war. They base this on experience in prior wars, when their areas were more remote from combat. And they care about their fellow Israelis (IMRA, 5/26/10).

Experience does not always get repeated. This time, the Arabs have several times as many rockets.

If Israel gives away Judea-Samaria, it would have no strategic depth for its population against its war criminal enemies who bombard civilian populations.

The Israeli Left often maligns "settlers," but those are the people who would give them refuge and without checking their politics.

The photo here is about a Bedouin attempting to squat on public land just outside a Jewish community, which countered by putting up its own tent near the Bedouin tent. This A.P. photo has a caption that explains only that the settlers set up a tent next to the Bedouin tent. No mention of the squatting and that the reaction to it was a form of self-defense. The caption slants the issue.

(For more on Israeli civil defense, click here)


Egypt is Israel's regional ally and energy supplier. Haaretz journalist Aluf Benn writes that relations between Egypt's President Mubarak and PM Netanyahu are good. Israel wants to keep them that way.

Mubarak shakes Netanyahu's hands in public. Mubarak tells people he is sure that Netanyahu "will do the right thing." Egypt shares in Israel's partial blockade of Gaza, to protect itself from terrorism, but Israel takes the whole obloquy over it, so as not to roil Mubarak. For the same reason, Netanyahu has curbed the tempers of Cabinet Ministers who tend to lash out at foreign leaders, including Mubarak.

The treaty with Egypt has enabled Israel to reduce defense expenditures. Having Egypt as an enemy would be a greater danger than Iran poses. Since Iran poses a danger to Egypt, as by subversion and terrorism, [and by taking up the mantle of Mideast leadership that Egypt feels entitled to], Mubarak drew closer to Israel. The U.S., including the current Administration, is careful not to use human rights issues to undermine Mubarak's rule as a bulwark against Iran.

Netanyahu must wish Mubarak longevity. He is up in years, no successor declared, and if the Moslem Brotherhood succeeded him, Israel would be in trouble. Israeli intelligence believes that the Egyptian military intelligence will not let the Brotherhood take over their country.

Mr. Benn fails to link the precariousness of Mubarak's relations with Israel, the possibility that the Moslem Brotherhood may take over Israel, and proposals that Egyptian forces be let into Gaza to unseat Hamas (IMRA, 5/26/10). http://www.imra.org.il/

Israel had better beef up its defenses.

Like Americans, Israelis casually label other countries "ally." For Americans, it suffices that a foreign country accept U.S. subsidy. Pakistan took American aid, but for its own purposes, purposes contrary to American interests and to peace and freedom.

Egypt is no ally of Israel, though the two countries have some temporary, common, non-ideological interests. The military doctrine of Egypt identifies Israel, though by location and not by name, as the enemy it trains against. That military just held war games about invading Israel. Egypt wages a diplomatic offensive against Israel, the current one being to deprive Israel of its nuclear deterrent.

Egypt's leader shakes hands with Israel's. So what! Arafat shook hands with Rabin, and then made war on Israel. Israel's enemies are divided between those who shake hands and those who do not.

Haaretz has an ideology that the Arabs are making peace with Israel. When this leftist ideology clashes with reality, leftists thrust reality aside. It does not take much to make my fellow Jews feel accepted. A shake of the hand or a pat on the head. The Jewish people developed an inferiority complex from centuries of political powerlessness. And so a fellow Jew told me today that he thought that Presidents Nixon, Clinton, and Bush were pro-Israel. The media told him so. Very comforting. Facts? Not his area of expertise. Israeli politicians should learn not to sound off and when to speak up. Speaking up should be channeled by policy to accomplish something and not offend unnecessarily.


Goods in Israel awaiting transit to Gaza (AP/Tsafrir Abayev)

Israel's Foreign Ministry explains the legality of its partial Gaza blockade:

1. Israel withdrew all its residents and military forces from Gaza. It cannot honestly be said to be occupying Gaza. It withdrew to foster good relations. Instead, the entity in Gaza turned the opportunity into a state of armed conflict.

2. Hamas prosecutes this war by bombarding Israeli citizens and by sending terrorists to infiltrate into Israel.

3. Sovereign countries have a right to decide who and what may go into and out of its borders. The U.S. restricts trade with many offensive regimes. Israel does not have to trade with Gaza. Being in a state of armed conflict, why should it?

4. Israel does let in humanitarian supplies, a million tons in the past year and-a-half. Israel's purpose is not to punish the people there but to pressure the regime to cease its armed hostilities.

5. The wherewithal for Hamas' war is imported, including smuggling by sea. Therefore, Israel gave due notice of a partial blockade. "Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no vessels can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian vessels and enemy vessels." The blockader has the right to bar foreign ships from entering the waters of the blockaded entity. This right is recognized by international law. Many countries engaged in it (IMRA, 5/27/10).

Ending the blockade is up to Hamas. All it has to do is end its state of armed conflict and preparation for war, such as building tunnels to infiltrate forces underground and across the Israeli border.

Foreigners who would like to see the blockade ended should press Hamas to end its state of armed conflict.

The explanation of the blockade shows that Egypt considered itself in a state of armed conflict with Israel, when it imposed a blockade of Israel's Red Sea port, Eilat, in 1967. That was before Israeli forces fired a shot. That blockade is one of the ways by which Egypt started that war.


"Last week, between May 16th and May 22nd,2010 a total of 523 truckloads, consisting of 13,517 tons of humanitarian aid were transferred into the Gaza Strip from Israel via the various crossings," including:

"938,127 liters of Heavy-Duty-Diesel fuel for the power station.
2 truckloads of cement.
645 tons of cooking gas.
12 truckloads of cooking oil.
49 truckloads of fruits and vegetables.
102 truckloads of wheat.
22 truckloads of meat, chicken and fish Products.
34 truckloads of dairy products.
100 truckloads of animal feed.
29 truckloads of hygiene products.
40 trucks of clothing and shoes.
21 trucks of Sugar.
8 trucks of medicine and medical equipment."

"Additionally, 281 medical patients and accompanying individuals from the Gaza Strip crossed into Israel and the Judea and Samaria region for medical treatment. 158 staff members of international organizations crossed into the Gaza Strip, and 150 crossed from the Gaza Strip into Israel." (IMRA, 5/26/10 from IDF).


Turks want IHH man freed (A.P./Ibrahim Usta)

The IDF cites a report by the Intelligence & Terrorism information Center that the Gaza-blockade-running flotilla was launched by radical human rights violators, in the name of human rights. Attending the ceremony "were Mahmad Tzoalha and Sahar Albirawi, both top Hamas terrorists who today operate in Great Britain, and Hamam Said, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan."

"Bolant Yilderim, the chairman of the IHH, a Turkish based pro-Palestinian organization that is spearheading the Gaza flotilla, delivered a radical speech at the ceremony to the applause of Turkish politicians and radical Islamic activists: 'Israel behaves like Hitler did towards the Jews. Hitler built concentration camps in Germany, and today the Zionist entity is building concentration camps in Palestine.'" [Of course there were no facts to back this up.]

Also present was Sheikh Raed Salah, head of the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement. "Salah has previously admitted in an Israeli Court to conferring with foreign agents and assisting unauthorized organizations," such as Hamas. "He often voiced anti-Semitic hate messages that are based on the most ancient blood libels: 'We are not the ones who eat a meal based on bread and cheese in children's blood.'" He had called the Jews "butchers of pregnant women and babies... Thieves, you are the bacteria of all times... The Creator meant for you to be monkeys and losers..."

The head of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Reuven Ehrlich, said that if the flotilla sponsors were humanitarian, all they need do is send the goods to Israel, through legal channels. He explained that they just want to provoke and embarrass Israel, and to help Hamas, hardly a humanitarian organization (IMRA, 5/26/10).

Hamas has stolen humanitarian aid and fired upon the land-based portals for the goods' entry. No noticeable international humanitarian protest over that. Bigots used the flag of humanitarianism to cover their own moral nakedness.


Israel found that one of the sponsors of the flotilla, IHH, Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation, plays an important role in international fund raising by Islamist terrorists, and banned it from its territory.

Close to the Moslem Brotherhood, IHH openly associates with the Brotherhood offshoot in Gaza, Hamas. IHH works with Hamas terrorist fronts posing as charities. IHH substantially helps finance Hamas and its regime.

At conferences, IHH officials support Hamas against the Palestinian Authority, and support Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians, in other words, terrorism.

IHH dispatched Azat Shahin to open an IHH branch in Judea Samaria. During his stint there, he transferred tens of thousands of dollars from IHH to Hamas organizations. Israel arrested him on suspicion of financing terrorism and supporting Hamas. Turkey got him extradited (IMRA, 5/27/10). http://www.imra.org.il/


Israel has warned the governments of the countries from which the flotilla is sailing that entering Gaza waters would violate international law (as explained in Part 1). The Foreign Ministry explained that Gaza is run by a terrorist organization that commits terrorist aggression, to the neglect of the people.

As an alternative, Israel invited the flotilla to unload its goods at the Israeli port of Ashdod, after inspection. Israel would deliver any humanitarian goods through the usual land portals to Gaza (IMRA, 5/27/10).


Israel is warning the flotilla at every stop it makes en route, to turn back. If the ships run the legal blockade, the passengers would be arrested and deported. The goods, however, would be delivered.

The government advised its troops to be wary of provocations and of the possible presence of terrorists. The IDF has been practicing for its interception of the flotilla (IMRA, 5/27/10).

My newspaper had a photo of Hamas ships in Gaza practicing, too. How will the Israeli Navy cope with them? Is Hamas' purpose to provoke shooting, so by reflex action, the "humanitarians" will blame Israel?

Some of my readers fail to distinguish between what the sources report and my comments after citing the course or in ellipses, and between what Israel does and I do. They get personal, which no editor permits and I have warned them against. They contradict each other over whether I am a liar, stupid, or cunning but working at some lobby's behest. Do they know something about my finances I don't?

A particularly persistent one makes derogatory comments about my ethnic group, up to the point of history-distorting blood libel. He smears, but I'm a "racist." I'm a liar, but he claims I delete articles for disagreeing with me, though since he obviously reads my articles, he can see the disagreeing comments that are relevant and not personal, which I do not delete. I'm stupid, but he wonders why I delete his personal and antisemitic comments, false and generalized without backing. (I have deleted comments that agree with me but which mock Muslims for being Muslims. Commentary must be respectable, as with any American newspaper.)

Such readers call me uninformed, but fail to deal with the dozen or so specific points in each article. Are they keeping some great font of information to themselves? All they do is raise irrelevant and discredited revisionist theories about the origins of the Arab-Israel conflict. Irrelevant generalities neither debate nor enlighten. I discuss, they defame.


In today's news, Isabel Kershner presents a somewhat different story from my earlier reports, so today I bring you the other side.

Whereas another source put the total weight of humanitarian goods that Israel let through into Gaza, in the past year and-a-half at a million tons, as according to Israel's Foreign Ministry, Ms. Kershner puts it at this year as 100,000 tons.

Another difference in Kershner's report is a UN claim that the partial embargo has repressed Gaza's agricultural sector, leading to a food shortage in 60% of Gaza households. No further details provided (New York Times, 5/28, A10).

If Kershner's tonnage figure were correct, and if it were comparable to transfers for the past year and-a-half, then the earlier figure would be not 1.5 million tons but about 400,000 tons.

It would have been useful to know how the partial blockade impaired local agriculture. What kind of food shortage is there? How extensive is "insufficient" food? Was any appeal made to Israel on it? Israel has been amenable to humanitarian appeals, such as to let Gaza patients transit through Israel. Surely Israel would prefer Gaza self-sufficiency in food production, rather than have to manage food shipments through Israel.

Another difference between the New York Times report and my series is the Times omission of the terrorist support and partial sponsorship of the flotilla. Kershner refers to passengers as "activists." That word is vague. Some of the passengers are customary anti-Israel. To them, the blockade is another opportunity to denigrate Israel. But it also is another lost opportunity for supposedly ethical people to denounce the terrorists who run Gaza oppressively and for the purpose of making war, a war that led to the very blockade purportedly offending the "activists."


One of the passengers on the "Free Gaza" flotilla is Greek Catholic Archbishop Hilarion Capucci. He had been convicted by Israel in 1974 of smuggling guns from Lebanon to the PLO. The Vatican got Israel to release him from jail (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/27/10) with a promise he stopped intruding into Israel affairs. He soon broke that promise.

So when the New York Times refers to the passengers merely as activists, it is covering up for a multitude of sinners. Many are not humanitarians.


The Pakistani Daily Times reports an alleged kidnapping and forcible conversion of a 13-year-old Hindu girl in Pakistan.

Mehnga Ram has a shoeshine booth in Rahim Yar Khan in Bengal, Pakistan. His daughter, Radha, has been missing for months. He and family looked everywhere. Then friends informed them that the girl had been adducted by the head of a madrassa, Darul Aloom in Khanpur.

The family says that first the madrassa people denied taking the girl. Then they claimed that she has converted to Islam and refuses to meet with her family. The family when to the police, but police refused to act, on the grounds that she had converted. Police advised the family to forget their daughter. Forget their daughter? Yes.

The family pleaded with respectable personages and various officials who gave them false promises but did nothing. Finally, the madrassa arranged for the girl's older brother to have a brief meeting with the girl. They told him she had married a Muslim.

At the meeting, the girl was crying, but tried to say something reassuring. The "husband's" family gave the brother a non-working phone number for contacting her. Human rights activists say this is a clear-cut case of forcible conversion.

The distraught father laments the poverty that limits his ability to fight back.

My comment: Note the series of criminal and inhumane acts: (1) Kidnapping; (2) Forced conversion of a child; (3) Forced marriage; (4) Protection of the criminals. Where is the morality in those acts done in the name of a religion?

I have read of similar cases in Egypt. In such cases, as well as in cases of Muslim attacks on Egyptian Christians or against Christians in Nigeria, the authorities stonewall. That is what life is like in a Muslim country lacking the rule of law or equal protection of the law.

When Jews lived in Yemen, Muslims would take away their children when their fathers died, even if the family could support them. I attended a hair-raising lecture on that.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, May 27, 2010.

A letter from Edgar Pick, Professor emeritus at Tel Aviv University to Mark Tanenbaum, resigned TAU governor.


May 24, 2010
Mr. Mark H. Tanenbaum
Miami Beach, Florida

Dear Mr. Tanenbaum

I am a Professor of Immunology at the Sackler School of Medicine, since 1970, when I joined the academic staff of Tel Aviv University, following postdoctoral studies at the Scripps Research Foundation in La Jolla and the University of London. I am attaching a brief Curriculum Vitae.

The reason behind this letter are the recent events at Tel Aviv University, following the speech by Mr. Dershowitz and your resignations from all your Tel Aviv Universityrelated functions, after many years of serving this institution in more than one way.

Your letter of resignation of May 11, 2010, was made public and the tumultuous events at the Board of Governors meeting have been aired in the press. Not having been present at this event, my knowledge of what went on is based on what we scientists would define as incomplete and possibly biased evidence. I do, however, believe that your description of what happened, in your letter of resignation, is accurate, meaning that the President of Tel Aviv University refused to allow a vote on your very important proposed resolution. I understand that your resolution dealt with the issue of some radical Tel Aviv University academics promoting a worldwide boycott of our own university.

I shall state from the beginning that I would like to congratulate you on your courageous stand at the Board of Governors meeting and after the meeting.

As someone who has been with Tel Aviv University for forty years, I am well familiar with the intensive, unrelenting and extremist activities of a number of the members of the academic staff of our University, who will not miss a single occasion to accuse this country of the worst crimes, support the most extreme forms of academic boycott against the Israeli academia, and offer support and encouragement to those whose explicit purpose is the elimination of Israel, as the home of the Jewish people.

The purpose of this letter is not to reiterate what is known to all who are honest enough to admit it, but to draw your attention to lesser known facts about the unwillingness of the officials of Tel Aviv University to stand up to what became an organized campaign of the vilification of Israel. Any attempt to put a halt to it is countered by the argument that the "McCarthyites" are trying to suppress academic freedom and free speech on the campus.

I would, thus, like to draw your attention to the more subtle ways by which Tel Aviv University is condoning activities that endanger the very existence of the university as an academic institution where the quality of research and teaching should be valued more than political sympathies. I shall not bring up the well known names mentioned by Alan Dershowitz but point out some of the events taking place on the campus under the very eyes of the present and past Presidents and Rectors.

  1. The university hosts the "Minerva Center for Human Rights", financed by the German Max Planck Society but receiving massive funding from political bodies such as the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and the Adenauer Foundation, with matching by Tel Aviv University. Among its scientific activities is a recent video conference with participants from MIT and Harvard who support a dialogue with Hamas and with special "guest star" Azmi Bishara. All my attempts to make the University aware of the extremist political nature of such "research", by writing to the present President and the past Rector, were not considered worthy of an answer.

  2. In 2009, a new "Minerva Center for the Humanities" was formed with a budget of 4 million Euro (!) to be matched by an equal sum (!) from Tel Aviv University. I am attaching the official Tel Aviv University announcement. The directors of this glorious Center are Professor Rivka Feldhay, a past collaborator of famed scientist Azmi Bishara, Professor Adi Ophir, a leading organizer of Israel Apartheid Week (see attached document) and Dr. Raif Zreik, a central figure in the intensely anti-Israeli organization, Adalah.

  3. I am sure that you must have noticed that past and present members of the academic community of Tel Aviv University functioned exclusively as official political representatives of the Israeli Left. These include: Itamar Rabinovich, Shlomo Ben- Ami, Eli Bar-Navi, Yuli Tamir, Avi Primor, and Shimon Shamir, and I might have missed some.

  4. I am bringing up these examples not because I think that a University cannot have a naturally developed political bias. A liberal, Left-leaning, and human rights-focused orientation are common to most prominent academic institutions in both America and Europe. The problem is that such orientation prevents them from taking action against those extremists who work actively against the best interests of universities and the academic endeavor, in general. This reluctance is justified by what they define as the wish to conserve academic freedom and the freedom of expression on the campus. The truth is that, independently of what party won the national elections, your future at Tel Aviv University, in most departments in the fields of the Humanities, Social Sciences, Law and the Arts, is dependent on you being looked upon as one who is a member of the so called "peace camp" and who will distance him/herself from the "settlers", the Likud, and the religious "extremists".

    I know that you were upset by Klafter's attitude. It will be of little consolation to you if I tell you that the earlier Presidents were variations of the same. The only difference that I sensed was that, when writing to Itamar Rabinovich or Zvi Galil, to protest yet another anti-Israel event on the campus that included, as an example, the participation of such an eminent scientist as Tali Fahima at a "Minerva Center for Human Rights" conference, they would respond by a brief note stating that it is not in their power to prevent it. I wrote to Klafter three times; once to ask for his support in preventing the scientific boycott of Ariel College, the second time to condemn the activities of two Tel Aviv University staff against the Israel science exhibit in Boston, and the third time to ask him to prevent the Pro-Hamas conference at the Faculty of Law. He never even acknowledged my letters. The sad thing is that even somebody whom I considered a friend, such as Dany Leviatan, never ever did something to prevent the gradual radicalization of Tel Aviv University.

  5. An excellent example for the lack of courage and determination of Tel Aviv University administrators is the fact that most of the most vicious enemies of the State of Israel are constantly traveling from one disinvestment meeting to another boycott meeting. These travels are financed by a special fund belonging to members of the academic staff, but proof has to be presented that the travel is related to the academic and/or research activities of the person. The Rector or Vice-Rector have to approve the use of funds. In spite of the fact that the real purpose of the trips of these "traveling salesmen of anti-Israel poison" is widely known, the Tel Aviv University administration is too frightened to refuse the use of University funds for activities intended to delegitimize the University and the State of Israel.

  6. One should not accept blindly the claim that we are dealing with a tiny minority of no real impact. As pointed out by Alan Dershowitz, we are not only facing vicious attacks on our academia by a determined group but also systematic indoctrination of students ex cathedra. My son in law is being taught by a Tel Aviv University historian that the war of independence was, in fact, a "civil war" for disputed land fought by Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians.

  7. It is also significant that about forty-six Tel Aviv University professors signed a statement condemning the speech of Dershowitz and many opposed the very fact of offering him a forum for the expression of his ideas. It became an accepted habit at Tel Aviv University that the freedom of speech is the exclusive prerogative of those who are the worst enemies of the freedom of expression.

  8. One should, of course, ask, why this lack of courage and determination in fighting evil and why the mentioned group of extremists can hold a whole University at ransom. The answer lies with the international campaign of delegitimization of Israel which has taken over most academic institutions all over the world. Most of the academic staff of Tel Aviv University and of most institutions of higher learning in Israel have learned that their chances of being invited to meetings, become members of international committees, or merely be befriended by scientific colleagues abroad, is made much easier if you are looked upon as an open-minded individual who is not afraid to condemn and criticize Israel for the occupation of Palestinian land, infringement of human rights, and crimes committed in Gaza. A perfect example for this is the economist Menachem Yaari, the President of the Israel Academy of Sciences, who will not miss one occasion to vilify this country and express sympathy and support for the Palestinian cause. Thus, you can safely assume that Professor Klafter will not jeopardize his future "jobs" by actions which will be considered by the enlightened ruling class of the academia as limiting the freedom of expression. Far from being "useful idiots", to use Stalin's expression, the defenders of extremism know well on which side their bread is buttered.

  9. There is, however, no better example for the abandonment by Tel Aviv University of any intention to resist the growing threat from the hate campaigners than the event recounted to me by my wife, who is the secretary of the Department of Archeology: At the end of the yearly graduation ceremony, some of the Jewish academic staff remained seated during the singing of the Hatikva, together with the Arab students and their families. My wife approached the Dean of Humanities and asked him why such outrage is accepted. He said that he did not notice that it happened. Neither did the Rector feel that this behavior should be condemned in a statement by the Tel Aviv University authorities. I would like to make it clear that, as a liberal intellectual, I believe that people should not be forced to stand up at the singing of the National Anthem. However, the Heads of Tel Aviv University should not behave as if it did not happen and should, at least, express their disapproval of such an act.

    Unfortunately, I have to conclude that people who lack intellectual honesty, national pride, and courage to fight openly for what is good and honest should be punished at the only level that they do understand: money.

I would like to congratulate you on your decision to stop all financial support to Tel Aviv University. I hope that you can recruit other donors to direct their donations for this University elsewhere, until the time that a new, honest and courageous leadership takes over. In the dire financial state that they are in, they should be taught a lesson. That playing Chamberlain to the threats from within the academia, mentioned in the Dershowitz speech, comes with a negative price tag. Once again, thanks for your honesty and courage. Many of us were waiting for a long time for a Mr. Tanenbaum to appear on the scene.

With best regards,

Edgar Pick, M.D.,Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Julius Friedrich Cohnheim Laboratory of Phagocyte Research
Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology
Sackler School of Medicine
Tel Aviv University
Tel Aviv 69978

Contact Israel Academia Monitor at email@israel-academia-monitor.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Eli E. Hertz, May 26, 2010.

part 1

Palestinian Arab aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel cannot and should not be rewarded.

Professor, Judge Schwebel, the former President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) explains why Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem:

"(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;

"(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;

"(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully [Jordan]; the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense [Israel] has, against that prior holder, better title.

"As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem."

part 2

Palestinian Arab aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel cannot and should not be rewarded.

"No Legal Right Shall Spring from Wrong" [1]

"Territorial rights under international law ... By their [Arab countries, E.H.] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel's territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of [UN, E.H.] Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article." [2]

Because the Arabs were clearly the aggressors, nowhere in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 or 338 — the cornerstones of a peace settlement — is Israel branded as an invader or occupier of the Territories and there is no call for Israel to withdraw from all the Territories. Palestinians allegations that the wording of 242 was 'deliberately ambiguous' or misconstrued are unfounded.

[1] Professor, Judge Schwebel "Justice in International Law," Cambridge University Press, 1994.

[2] Professor Julius Stone "Israel and Palestine, Assault on the Law of Nations" The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981, p. 127. Professor Julius Stone was recognised as one of the twentieth century's leading authorities on the Law of Nations. His work represents a detailed analysis of the central principles of international law governing the issues raised by the Arab-Israel conflict. He was one of a few scholars to gain outstanding recognition in more than one field. Professor Stone was one of the world's best-known authorities in both Jurisprudence and International Law.

Eli E. Hertz is president of Myths and Facts, Inc. The organization's objective is to provide policymakers, national leadership, the media and the public-at-large with information and viewpoints that are founded on factual and reliable content. Contact him at today@mythsandfacts.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, May 26, 2010.
This was written by Justus Reid Weiner and Itai Eres.

Radical groups are hijacking her name for their purposes.

International "activists" are at it again. A nine-ship flotilla of "peace activists" is on its way from Turkey, Greece and other European countries toward the Gaza strip, laden with left-wingers and a variety of goods to supplement those available to Gaza residents. This represents the latest effort by a radical group known as the Free Gaza Movement (FGM). In an attempt to galvanize support and sympathy, and achieve a better result than the three earlier abortive attempts, the group has chosen to name the lead ship the Rachel Corrie.

For those who don't recall, Rachel Corrie was a 23-year-old American student activist killed in a tragic accident in 2003 while attempting to block an IDF bulldozer.

Corrie arrived in Israel as part of an independent study program during her senior year at Evergreen State College. It was there that Corrie first heard of going to Gaza with the loosely affiliated assortment of left-wing radicals known as the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). Evergreen's faculty also displayed gross negligence in allowing her to spend a semester abroad, for course credit, in the West Bank and Gaza during the height of the second intifada. After a mere two days of ISM "training," Corrie and her fellow activist trainees were sent to the Rafah crossing, described by IDF spokesman Capt. Jacob Dellal as "the most dangerous area in the West Bank and Gaza."

Ironically however, Corrie is perhaps a more apt reference than the FGM organizers realize. The tragedy of her death is that it was completely avoidable. Moreover, her behavior, flouting local and international law, raises the question of what role, if any, small groups of extremist activists have in interfering in the counterterrorism measures of a democratic state.

Despite dishonest testimony by the ISM, subsequent developments revealed that the driver of the bulldozer likely couldn't even see Corrie. The most startling discovery was the recklessness of the ISM in dealing with its volunteers. They were encouraged to prevent the demolition of buildings and smuggling tunnels by using their bodies as shields against trucks and bulldozers. Although the volunteers were provided with visibility vests and megaphones, it was only a matter of time before the folly of the ISM led to catastrophic results.

If playing chicken with cars is suicidal, doing so with an armored bulldozer, more difficult to control and with less visibility, borders on insanity. Yet that is exactly what the ISM advocated, while making sure to record all their encounters for use in the event of just such an accident. As one of Corrie's colleagues stated, "Several times we had to dive away at the last moment in order to avoid being crushed. This continued for about two and a half hours."

WHILE THIS may not have been exactly what Evergreen College envisioned as Corrie's independent study, the ISM was complicit in these dangerous antics, having promoted activism that would "more directly challenge the Israeli military."

The ISM views its volunteers as pawns in a political game, fully aware that some gambits require the loss of a pawn. Corrie's death, a terrible accident for the IDF, became a propaganda weapon for the ISM.

ISM is an organization that recognizes a Palestinian "right" to resistance via "legitimate armed struggle." Its "accolades" include preventing IDF demolition of bomb-making factories and weapons-smuggling tunnels as well as the aiding, abetting and protecting of terrorists. In addition, the ISM also encouraged confrontational, reckless resistance by its international volunteers.

In 2002, in the midst of a violent takeover of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem by Palestinian terrorists, 10 ISM members ran in to act as human shields. The same year as Corrie's death, a popular bar in Tel Aviv, Mike's Place, was attacked by two suicide bombers who had had tea with ISM members only five days earlier.

The ISM's behavior is typical of such radical groups. Purporting to protect human rights, they are often callous toward human life in general. What legitimacy is warranted by NGOs that have no respect for the lives of their volunteers?

Additionally, these groups fail to recognize that Israel abides by both local and international law. It has a well-developed judicial system, with the authority and will to limit its executive and legislative branches, one that has already delineated Israel's commitments, obligations and rights in Gaza. The potential harm to local interests and stability caused by the audacious interference of a handful of people from other continents is tremendous. Individuals in Europe or North America may read about the plight of Palestinians in Gaza and wish to help, but chartering boats to sail to foreign waters is a misguided effort.

To promote their personal delusions, the ISM and FGM neglect any legal, judicial, diplomatic or otherwise politically palatable routes. While their personal risks are less than those taken by activists illegally entering Iran, North Korea or China, they still choose to waste public and private resources while violating domestic and international law.

The Rachel Corrie ironically represents a seaborne version of the organizational callousness and disregard that led to Rachel Corrie's death in 2003. With such dubious priorities, these activists continue to be a part of the problem, not a legitimate attempt at a peaceful solution. Instead of being embarrassed by their role in Corrie's death, these radical groups are hijacking her name for their current efforts to help Hamas dominate Gaza.

Let Rachel Corrie rest in peace.

Justus Weiner is an international human rights lawyer. He is currently a Scholar in Residence at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and an adjunct lecturer at the Hebrew University

2. That Bumsky, Chomsky

"Thoughts On Israel's Chomsky 'Ban'"
by Steven Plaut

It seems the only nation not allowed to ban people with belligerent, racist or hostile political views is Israel. Recently, MIT professor Noam Chomsky was prevented by Israel from entering the country via Jordan. Chomsky was on his way to give an anti-Israel speech at a university in Ramallah in the West Bank. (Instead he gave the speech by videoconferencing from Jordan.)

Chomsky had been in Israel for visits before, and the "ban" was evidently nothing more than some bureaucratic glitch in the instructions to Israeli border passport checkers. Chomsky was invited at the Jordan River to enter the country through the Tel Aviv airport. This did not prevent a worldwide campaign of anti-Israel vilification by the usual crowd blasting Israel for "banning" Chomsky, complete with denunciations of "Israeli fascism."

Chomsky himself denounced the Israeli decision to block his entry as "Stalinism." To tell the truth, when I first heard that Chomsky accused Israel of Stalinism I assumed he meant it as a compliment. Chomsky has gone out of his way to defend Stalin and publishes his articles on all the best Stalinist websites.

Ironically, the bureaucratic glitch resulted in Israel's accidentally doing the right thing.

Just a few individuals have been prevented from entering Israel because of their ties to terrorists or their involvement in anti-Semitic or anti-Israel political activities. One of them was Norman Finkelstein, the hatemonger fired by DePaul University, who was banned from entering Israel a couple of years back due to his public championing of Hizbullah terrorists.

Another was Richard Falk, the retired Princeton propagandist who's made a career out of denouncing Israelis as Nazis. Falk was denied entry into Israel as a UN "investigator," though earlier he had been allowed to enter as a private citizen.

In Chomsky we have someone who has pow-wowed with Hizbullah terrorists and promoted Holocaust deniers. Like Finkelstein and Falk, Chomsky has long led the campaign to boycott and "divest" from Israel.

The very same people who whined about Israel's refusing Chomsky entry into the country to engage in anti-Israel agitation were strangely silent when Britain banned 16 people on grounds they held politically incorrect opinions. These included radio host Michael Savage. Before that the UK banned Rev. Fred Phelps from entering the country because he is anti-gay. Few on the enlightened Left denounced the UK for fascism for those decisions.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders, a candidate for prime minister of the Netherlands, was barred from entering the UK because of his opinions. The Brits have banned a host of Israelis from entering their country, including activist Moshe Feiglin. Not a single Israeli leftist tearing out hair at the barring of Chomsky has spoken out against that.

The United States has banned all sorts of people, not limited to those suspected of having ties to terror groups. In some cases it was because of their political views. Journalist Robert Fisk was banned for that reason. Professor John Milios from Greece was banned. Tariq Ramadan, the darling of the pro-jihad Left, was barred until recently from both the U.S. and France.

Adam Habib, professor of political science and deputy vice chancellor of the University of Johannesburg, was barred from entering the U.S. for three years. Liberian President Charles Taylor and other leading Liberians were banned from entering the U.S. because of their support for rebels in Sierra Leone. Canada has also banned people because of their views or behavior, most famously George Galloway, the British member of Parliament who enjoyed close ties to Saddam Hussein.

Germany, Austria and some other European countries routinely ban neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers from entering their territories and sometimes jail them when they enter.

In the late 1970s, a professor of literature at the University of Lyon named Robert Faurisson wrote two letters to Le Monde claiming the existence of gas chambers in concentration camps used by the Nazis to exterminate Jews was a hoax. Faurisson was convicted of Holocaust denial and hate speech in two trials in France, in 1983 and 1990.

Faurisson has also suggested that the diary of Anne Frank is a Zionist forgery and has spent much of his career smearing Nobel Prize-winning Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel.

Noam Chomsky has long been Faurisson's most prominent defender. In the 1980s he signed a petition denying Faurisson was an anti-Semite and saluting Faurisson as a "respected professor."

In defending Faurisson, Chomsky wrote: "I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work."

Personally, I would have let Chomsky enter Israel and then immediately arrested him for Holocaust denial (if not the Holocaust of the Jews then surely the genocide against Cambodians). Holocaust denial is illegal in Israel, though the law is never enforced against anyone, even Arab politicians. Indicting Chomsky would have made such a wonderful legal precedent.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Feiglin, May 26, 2010.

Illustration by Temple Institute

Sing and rejoice, daughter of Zion; for, I will come, and I will dwell in your midst says G-d. And many nations shall join themselves to G-d on that day, and shall be My people, and I will dwell in your midst; and you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me unto you. And G-d shall inherit Judah as His portion in the Holy Land, and shall choose Jerusalem again. Be silent, all flesh, before G-d; for He is aroused out of His holy habitation. (From this week's reading of Prophets, Zecharia 2: 14-17)

Behold I will come and dwell in your midst. True, you thought that you could live here without Me. You thought that you could be "normal" like all the other nations. Your left hand replaced me with socialism and universalism. Your right hand banished me with nationalism and state supremacism.

The non-Jews whom you so desperately wanted to imitate are waiting for My message of redemption and they are sure that you are the bearers of My word.

On the one hand, they turn their backs on you, deny that you have a legitimate right to exist and arrest your leaders in Europe. If you are not My daughter, they wonder, what are you doing in My royal palace? On the other hand, they are counting on you to bring them closer to Me when I will dwell in your midst.

You have fled your destiny, you have denied your connection to Jerusalem.

You surrendered it in 1948, you gave your beating heart — the Temple Mount — to the Moslem wakf in 1967 and now — you are freezing, tearing and dividing My holy city. But I will choose Jerusalem once again and nobody will dare protest — not Iran and not Washington. Nobody will utter a word when I will restore My presence to Jerusalem.

Shabbat Shalom,
Moshe Feiglin

Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org. To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell)

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, May 26, 2010.

Hmmm... so good to see that Obama is deeply concerned about Israel's security.

Let's see: global troops...this raises a few hypothetical ( nor not so hypothetical questions) which UN member countries will volunteer their troops for this job? (likely not canada or usa) once stationed on Israel's border, will these troops do what the UNFIL troops have done in Lebanon? (and if you think the answer is "no"....tell us why you think that)

How about what the UN peace keeping force in Sinai did on May 15, 1967? (in case you don't know, they fled the scene within a few days of Gamal Abdul Nasser's demand of U-Thant (UN Secretary General, aka the "bungling Burmese")

How about what UN observers have done to prevent Hamas weapons smuggling in Gaza Strip since 9/2005? (aka: nothing, have actually helped Hamas)

How about what UN forces have done in retaliation to Hamas' attack on UN summer camp for under-priviledged Arab children? (Hamas burned it down, because it was teaching the kids very un-Islamic, vice-promoting stuff like sports for girls, gymnastics for girls, etc.).

How about what UN peace-keeping forces in the Congo have done? (in case you don't know, some of them have been replaced due to well-substantiated evidence of sex-for-food deals with under-aged starving Congolese girls).

And, as noted in the article below, such troops could easily, intentionally or accidenally, get in the way of Israeli hot pursuit of terrorists; and they could impede or prevent Israel from penetrating "Palestinian" state territory in chase of terrorists.

Bottom line, such troop deployments would help the terrorists and hinder israel, (especially when you recall that the states most likely to offer their troops could be Libya [member of the UN human rights council], other Arab states [since they are all so anxious for peace and good fellowship with their neigbhoring non-Mulsim state], many Muslim states [since they are so commited to peace in the middle east], and far away neutral states like China [who would like to impress Iran with its stand on peace in the middle east so that Iran would buy more gasoline and WMDs from china].

Not a pretty picture.

And all of this instead of simply acknowledging the real problem, and demanding that the PA and Hamas and Hezbollah stand down from their genocidal terrorist goals, stop the violence, stop the incitement, and start cooperating with all of their neighbors (including Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.), and putting pressure on them to do so. david ml

This below is by Aaron Klein and it was posted yesterday in WorldNetDaily. It is called "The New World Disorder".


NEW YORK — A U.S. plan envisions stationing international troops along Israel's border with a future Palestinian state, WND has learned.

Palestinian Authority officials privy to the plan say the Obama administration proposed deploying NATO soldiers along the Palestinian side of a future border with Israel as well as along the borders of Jordan and any future Palestinian state.

Israeli government sources confirmed such a plan has been proposed.

The sources said the concept is not exclusive to the Obama administration. Both Presidents Clinton and Bush broached the idea of stationing international troops along the borders of a future Palestinian state.

International troops and monitors do not boast a positive track record in fulfilling their protective duties on behalf of Israel.

Monitors previously stationed along the Gaza-Egypt border fled their duties multiple times amid Hamas threats and attacks. The monitors were deployed to report any instances of weapons smuggling or terrorist infiltration along the border.

Also, following the Second Lebanon War in 2006, about 15,000 soldiers under the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL, deployed in South Lebanon with the objective of ensuring a truce between Israel and Hezbollah as well as to stop the Hezbollah terror group from rearming.

According to reports, Hezbollah, with international troops present, has acquired more rockets and sophisticated weaponry from Syria and Iran than before the 2006 war. The group reportedly has enough rockets to blanket Israeli population centers for a prolonged period of time.

Israeli security officials told WND the Israeli army routinely passes to UNIFIL commanders aerial photographs and video images of Hezbollah weapons smuggling routes. But with few exceptions, the international forces have not taken action.

The security officials are concerned the UNIFIL forces could get in the way and impede any future Israeli defensive action needed against Hezbollah.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, May 26, 2010.

Dear friends,

This is a very serious political topic that has direct bearing on what is happening in the Middle East.

President Obama's kudos to the Muslim world and his policies which cause a sharp decline in America's deterrance are too serious to be ignored.

Following are two important articles on the disturbing subject. The first is by Peter Ferrara and it appeared on American Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/26/ what-barack-obama-is-thinking#comment_311454

The second is by"Great power no more?" By Arthur Herman and it appeard in

You should also consider reading Newt Gingrich's new book: To Save America. Your Truth Provider, Yuval.


"What Barack Obama Is Thinking"
Peter Ferrara

Students of history will recognize the method to President Obama's madness. The parallels in both policy and politics to the Roosevelt Administration are too striking not to be deliberate. President Obama is consciously modeling his Administration on the Roosevelt Administration. But just as the liberals of the 1930s graduated to the New Left of the 1960s, President Obama's policies and politics transcend the liberalism of the 1930s. He is building what Newt Gingrich rightly calls a secular socialist machine in his new book To Save America.

Unreconstructed Keynesian Economics

Roosevelt's Keynesian economics was left for dead in the 1980s with President Reagan's supply-side revolution miraculously ending the stagflation of the 1970s with a 25-year economic boom. But President Obama came into office talking as if that never happened, casting it down the memory hole. While Reagan's early 1981 budget cuts slashed the federal budget by about 5%, Obama rammed through an almost $1 trillion stimulus package of nearly all Keynesian economics from the 1930s, laughing at his astounded critics with the question, "What do you think a stimulus is?"

Economically, it didn't work, just as it didn't in the 1930s or the 1970s. Now 29 months after the recession officially started in December, 2007, unemployment is 10% and rising, and the stock market is again stumbling, with the Dow still 4000 points off its last highs. The recovery was overdue a year ago, and even now economic growth is not half what it should be.

But note how the stimulus spending was structured so that more is spent this year than last. Was the goal to reduce unemployment as quickly as possible, or to use the guise of Keynesian stimulus spending for a political slush fund to buy as many votes as possible in this political year? Note also that about half of the direct "stimulus" spending went to state and local governments to prop up the employment of public employees, the most reliable supporters of liberal Democrat candidates. The only thing President Obama's stimulus is stimulating is a left-wing Democrat political machine.

Attack on Wall Street

Another early central theme of the Roosevelt Administration was a searing attack on Wall Street. The famed Pecora hearings, led by the Chief Counsel to the Senate Banking Committee Ferdinand Pecora, crucified top Wall Street bankers and brokers as the cause of the Depression. Despite the hallowed political propaganda long taught to American schoolchildren, Wall Street misdeeds played only a minor bit role in the Great Depression. The real causes were Fed mismanagement enabling a drastic collapse of the money supply, causing ruinous deflation, followed by brutal tax rate increases, and the soaring protectionist tariffs of the Smoot-Hawley Act. Roosevelt's massive overregulation and Keynesian economics draining private sector investment were additional factors extending the Depression for a decade, putting the "Great" into the "Great Depression" as Amity Shlaes put it in her eye-opening book, The Forgotten Man.

But the Pecora hearings and Roosevelt's class warfare rhetoric excoriating "the malefactors of great wealth" successfully shifted the blame politically from the government to the private sector. The result was passage of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, imposing extensive new regulation on Wall Street, as if that would resolve the causes of the Depression. The measures did not produce economic recovery, but rather mostly just decades of voluminous securities filings filled with meaningless boilerplate that nobody ever read.

Today we see President Obama trying to pull off the exact same thing. The Democrats managed to inspire union-generated civil unrest with their incendiary rhetoric regarding contractually specified Wall Street "bonuses." The statesman Obama then poured oil on the fire, explaining,

The people on Wall Street still don't get it. They're still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks? Well, let's see. You know, you guys are drawing down 10-, 20-million-dollar bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we got 10% unemployment.

But actually, no, Washington, it was "you guys" who caused the problem. The Fed again started it, this time with excessively loose monetary policy during the Bush Administration keeping real interest rates below zero for years, as explained by Stanford monetary policy guru John Taylor in his book Getting Off Track. That policy essentially subsidized excessive leverage and runaway risk.

Those cheap dollar, easy money policies joined with the "affordable housing" policies of the Clinton Administration and Congressional Democrats to create the housing bubble, pumped up by subprime mortgages going to people who couldn't afford them, or who were just speculating and willing to abandon their homes if they got into trouble. The Congressionally sponsored, financial terrorist organizations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then spread trillions in toxic securities backed by these subprime mortgages throughout the global financial system, ultimately threatening to bring it all down.

Following Roosevelt, President Obama again used the crisis to enact further government regulation of Wall Street in the financial regulatory reform bill. But Obama's regulatory monster makes Roosevelt's Wall Street regulation look like a sellout. Obama's bill effectively takes over Wall Street, institutionalizing bailouts with comprehensive new federal authority to seize any institution the government deems troubled. That power does not even have to be used, for the financial industry to become a house pet of the Democrat political machine, with President Obama's new billy club always ready and waiting in the closet. Don't expect to see any Republican fundraisers on Wall Street any time soon. Those are all Democrat affairs now, collecting protection money.

Further following the Roosevelt model, the Obama Administration inaugurated the Congressional debate on the financial regulation bill with a trumped-up, show-trial securities fraud suit against Goldman Sachs. Any free market advocate has to detest Goldman, which already has long been a central cog in the Democrat political machine. But the civil fraud suit against Goldman is an abuse of power, alleging essentially that Goldman defrauded itself into $75 million in losses in sponsoring an investment vehicle demanded by the market, which enabled investors to bet either for or against the subprime housing bubble. The suit is so contrary to legal precedent and the basic facts that the government prosecutors richly deserve sanctions, and if it ends with the deserved judicial excoriation, remember you read it here first.

In the end, two of the actual malefactors of the great wealth of government power themselves at the root of the housing bubble crisis, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, stood taking credit for the financial reg reform bill, which will only add to the secular socialist machine rather than address the root causes of the financial crisis.

Crony Capitalism

Another major portion of the stimulus went to subsidies for so-called "green" energy, solar, wind, biofuels, etc. This was supposed to create "green" jobs, with President Obama proclaiming, "The nation that leads the green energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy." (The global warming scientific grounds for such subsidies are sheer fantasy as discussed at length in this column many times before). Last year, a study of the experience with such subsidies in Spain found that they destroyed 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy for every green energy job created. High cost energy that has to be heavily subsidized with taxpayer dollars is not a good strategy for creating jobs.

More recently, a leaked Spanish government study estimates even greater net job losses. As Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute reported last week at Pajamas Media, the Socialist Party Spanish government has publicly acknowledged that its green energy subsidy program has to be drastically curtailed if not abandoned altogether, "lest the experiment risk Spain becoming Greece." Investors Business Daily further reported last Friday a new study of green energy subsidies in Italy considering the full impact of the higher energy costs on the economy, and concluding, "Each green job cost 6.9 jobs in the industrial sector and 4.8 jobs across the entire economy." Indeed, high energy costs kill manufacturing.

But while green energy corporate welfare fails miserably as economics, it succeeds politically in building the Obama/Democrat political machine. All the "businesses" that exist, whether wind, solar, ethanol, or others, solely because of their Democrat party benefactors now also have trade associations that will join in contributing and openly campaigning for continued Democrat party majorities, especially as Tea Party conservatives exhibit greater clout in the Republican Party, defeating RINOs. The same strategy is now being pursued in the new Kerry-Lieberman cap and trade bill, structured to deliver billions and billions to corporate interests to buy off their potential opposition. If that bill becomes law, all these businesses will be added to the Obama/Democrat political machine as well.

Government Dependency

President Obama has also followed Roosevelt's creation of massive new entitlements with the Obamacare takeover of health care. If not repealed, that government takeover will mean the end of high quality American health care, with government bureaucrats ultimately deciding what health care you can receive in service of the cause of "social justice" rather than your personal health.

But in the process, the legislation massively increases government dependency with an estimated trillion dollars in increased welfare providing health insurance subsidies for families making as much as $88,000 per year. Those cost estimates will prove woefully inadequate, as the legislation will likely cost at least 3 times as much, if not following Medicare in costing 10 times original estimates. But the ultimate cost does not matter to President Obama. What matters is that he considers the votes of everyone receiving the new entitlement benefits to be bought and paid for as part of the New Left political machine. The same politics are reflected in the one-third increase in federal welfare spending President Obama has already adopted in his first two years alone, with total national welfare spending now to cost an astounding $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

Like Roosevelt, Obama has thoroughly aligned himself with the labor unions, even though the great majority of workers today have rejected unionism as not in their best interests. Just as Roosevelt's 1935 Wagner Act heavily favoring the institutional interests of unions over the interests of workers until corrected by the 1947 Taft Hartley Act, Obama today seeks to pass card check legislation that would take away the vote of working people over unionization. It would effectively turn small and medium businesses over to union organizers as well through mandatory, 90 day arbitration dictating the terms and conditions of union contracts. Besides the massive auto bailout, actually a bailout for the UAW, Obama seeks to overturn the careful balance of traditional labor law through every means possible, including the appointment of radical leftists like Craig Becker to controlling labor-related government positions. Expanding unions, of course, just further expands the Obama/Democrat political machine.

President Obama's misrepresentation and defamation of the Arizona immigration control law is a further, naked attempt to build his secular socialist machine. That law was carefully crafted only to enforce current legal requirements of federal law. It also expressly prohibits racial profiling, allowing officers to investigate immigration status only during otherwise lawful contacts arising out of other matters, and only when there is probable cause to question such status. Yet Obama sponsors Mexican President Felipe Calderon before a joint session of Congress misrepresenting the Arizona law and effectively denouncing America, to the great applause and glee of Congressional Democrats, while Mexico maintains punitive immigration laws. Obama here is simply trying to rile up his Hispanic voter base for this year's elections.

In short, President Obama and the Democrats are trying to nationalize the urban political machines dating back to New York City's Tammany Hall that have long been the backbone of the Democrat party.

It Won't Work

But it won't work. Only an intellectually cloistered prep school Marxist could think the politics of the 1930s would be an effective model for today's modern America 75 years later. While America's old media and brain freeze academia are part of the Obama/Democrat New Left political machine as well, they are effectively countered today by the modern media of the Internet, cable and satellite TV, talk radio, nationally distributed conservative newspapers and magazines, and the conservative and libertarian think tanks and grassroots organizations.

In this environment, the Obama/Democrat political machine cannot survive the substantive policy failures that will blast it to smithereens over the next 24 months. We are enjoying now the high point of the Obama economy, a natural cyclical recovery that Obama has already managed to stunt to my own surprise. Yet the ultraliberalism of Washington's ruling Democrats is already cratering their political fortunes. When the concrete economic disasters of the 1970s begin to reappear next year with a new economic downturn, President Obama and his propagandists are not going to be able to talk their way out of political chaos. The American people are far too sophisticated now and have experienced too many years of bountiful prosperity to settle for the stagnation of European and Latin American socialism that Obama and Pelosi are brewing.

Compounding this is a trajectory of grievous foreign policy reversals, with President Obama inviting War through Weakness in the Middle East and elsewhere, and mushrooming nuclear proliferation in response to the now emerging nuclear Iran. The likely result of all this is a geometrically worsening downward spiral of political collapse for the Obama Democrats.

The better political survival strategy for the Democrats is the Blue Dog Democrat ploy that continued to work in the Pennsylvania 12 special election last week. But even that shows the weakness of the Obamunistas. In a two to one Democrat district, represented by Democrats for decades, with the national union infrastructure able to focus all of their resources on that one race, the Democrat won campaigning against the Obama agenda on a Rush Limbaugh platform. Will Obama really be able to maintain his leftist agenda with a Congress increasingly populated by those winning in this way?

Republicans must and will learn to counter this more effectively by aggressively attacking and exposing Blue Dog double dealing. Even more important, they must get much better at projecting a vision and theme of renewed American prosperity and growth.

Peter Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation, a policy advisor to the Heartland Institute, and general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

"Great power no more?"
By Arthur Herman
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/ great_power_no_more_7kmITWsRMs4HVz5eMsnhDP
May 18, 2010

It seems Barack Obama has a new presidential role model, at least as far as national de fense is concerned: Dwight Eisenhower. But the Ike that Obama likes isn't the easy-going golfing geezer — and certainly not the grim Cold Warrior who promised massive nuclear retaliation on the enemy if they started any serious trouble.

No, this is the Ike who slashed America's defense budget by more than a quarter after the Korean War, and who, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, was willing to "make hard choices" about where American military might should be used, and where it shouldn't.

That was the message Gates conveyed in a May 8 speech at the Eisenhower Library on the future of America's national defense — echoing Obama's own praise for Ike at West Point Dec. 1.

To the Obama team, the Eisenhower years represent an America aware of its strategic limits and willing to just say "no" to more money for the Pentagon. "The gusher" of post-9/11 military spending is going to be shut off, Gates announced, for "a good period of time."

The fact is, America is being set up for a sharp decline in our ability to project military force and protect vital interests. In that vein, Gates mentioned Ike more than a dozen times — and Ronald Reagan not once.

Our nation's soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors know how to take orders and salute. The problem audience here is America's enemies, present and future.

The Navy is down to its lowest number of vessels since the Carter years. The next generation of destroyers has been cut from a planned 32 ships to 3. The F-22 Raptor advanced-fighter program will soon be as extinct as the dinosaur it's named after. We're already planning to peel out of Iraq and Afghanistan; the jihadists have the dates marked on their calendars.

Evoking the name of America's greatest soldier-president since George Washington won't cover the fact that the new "Ike" approach looks like a formula for America's demise as a great power. Five days before the Eisenhower speech, Gates spoke at the Navy League conference in DC. According to one eyewitness, you could've heard a pin drop among the assembled ex-sailors and navy contractors as Gates announced that "we simply can't afford to perpetuate a status quo" of 11 aircraft carriers and 57 nuclear submarines.

This is the Obama Pentagon Two-Step. Last year, we had the cuts in specific military programs, including the Raptor. This year, with deficits soaring thanks to Obama's gusher of domestic outlays, will come the actual cuts in spending — including mothballing ships, shutting down bases, reducing the number of officers and trimming raises and health benefits for service personnel.

It is important to realize this is not the result of rethinking our defense priorities, as Gates and his supporters like to insist. Of course the Pentagon could use some cost-cutting; yes, certain weapons programs like the Littoral Combat Ship have involved a disgraceful waste of time and money. No one denies that we need to be ready to face the military challenges of the future, rather than the past.

But we just don't have the leisure to hit the "reset" button on our military. We're entangled in two major conflicts, Iraq and Afghanistan, involving every military service — and may be unable to avoid others in the near future, including possibly Iran.

Yes, Eisenhower trimmed defense after Korea, much as Obama wants to do after Iraq. But even at their slimmest, Ike's defense outlays were 10 percent of GDP; we're at less than 4 percent today. By Ike's standards, our defense budget should be at least double the current $786 billion.

And Ike got "more bang for the buck" by putting his defense dollars into nuclear weapons, ready to be carpeted across Russia and East Europe by Air Force bombers if the Soviets made a major move. Red China, even Albania, were slated for annihilation whether combatants or not. That's hardly the kind of "balancing of strategic options" that Obama and Gates say they want — or that our forces are capable of doing right now.

We've been here before. In the '70s under Jimmy Carter, and in the '90s under Bill Clinton, Democrats tried to cash in their peace dividends after Vietnam and the Cold War by cutting the Pentagon to pay for domestic spending. Carter's cuts yielded the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Soviet troops in Cuba. The Clinton-era cuts — in the case of the Army, almost 40 percent — left us gasping to catch up when Afghanistan and then Iraq beckoned.

The US fleet of aircraft carriers that Gates sees as "wasting assets" are in fact the guarantors of our great-power status and our strategic reach. The post-9/11 "gusher" of spending he refers to was actually the result of trying to make up for a decade of neglect — almost certainly what a Republican president will have to do after Obama.

In fact, a revolt against the Obama-Gates crash diet is already starting in Congress. Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) is pushing for proscribed limits on how many Navy vessels can be retired before replacements must be ordered. And bigger resistance looms after November.

Gates certainly doesn't want to be remembered as the architect of America's military decline. Sadly, there may be some in the Obama White House who do.

Arthur Herman's most recent book is Gandhi and Churchill.

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Gil Ronen, May 26, 2010.

`Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu broke his silence Tuesday regarding Iran's enriched uranium deal with Turkey, calling it "an act of deception." Until this statement, the Israeli government had offered no official comment on the deal, apparently preferring to let other countries react to it first.

Iran announced last week it would ship its nuclear reactors' low-grade uranium to Turkey, which in return will give Tehran fuel rods of medium-enriched uranium for a "medical research reactor." The deal was also signed by Brazil.

Speaking before the Knesset plenum in a special session convened at the request of 40 Knesset members, Netanyahu said: "This is transparently an Iranian act of deception that is meant to divert international opinion from the sanctions against Iran in the [United Nations] Security Council."

The deal between Iran, Turkey and Brazil is "a bogus suggestion," he said, "because it leaves Iran with enough uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons."

"It is commendable that the United States has decided to move forward in pushing through sanctions," said the Israeli head of state. "This is an important move in a symbolic sense, but it is clear to us that these sanctions will not stop Iran. Harsher sanctions will make clearer the determination to prevent Iran's arming with nuclear weapons, but it is not certain that even they will stop it."

Regarding indirect negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, which began recently and are to last four months, Netanyahu said: "The primary and most important principle, which I am glad that the United States adopted and made clear to the Palestinian Authority, is that there are no preconditions. This should not prevent the discussions from taking place."

"The second principle that we and the United States agree about — and I would like to hope that the Palestinians understand this too — is that the proximity talks are the initial stage and a short corridor to direct talks."

Gil Ronen served n the IDF as Army Radio's Knesset and Territories correspondent and later reported for Koteret Rasheet and Ha'ir and serving as Editor at Haaretz and Yediot Aharonot.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, May 26, 2010.

Could US-Trained PA Military Turn Guns on Israel?

This was written by Avi Yellin.


During a military exercise with the IDF's elite Kfir Brigade last week at the Tze'elim base in Israel's south, GOC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Avi Mizrahi warned soldiers of potential challenges they may face in the near future.

The Kfir brigade, created December 2005 to deal with unrest in Israel's Judea and Samaria regions, trained extensively in urban warfare and simulated a scenario in which IDF soldiers were pitted against the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority's new American-trained military.

Mizrahi told soldiers that the PA security forces, trained in Jordan by United States Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, is a formidable potential enemy and that the IDF needs to know how to fight them if the need should arise.

"This is a trained, equipped, American-educated force," Mizrahi said. "This means that at the beginning of a battle, we will pay a higher price. A force like that can shut down an urban area with four snipers... It is a proper infantry force facing us and we need to take that into account. They have attack capabilities and we do not expect them to give up easily."

Keith Dayton himself has expressed belief that his PA army would likely attack the Jewish state in the event that Israel does not give in to the demands of the Middle East Quartet, comprising America, Russia, the United Nations and European Union. At a May 2009 lecture in Washington, Dayton indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria to the PA within two years, the Fatah forces he and his fellow American officers are currently training could easily turn their guns on the Israelis.

"With big expectations, come big risks," Dayton said. "There is perhaps a two-year shelf life on being told that you're creating a state, when you're not."

Following these remarks, United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates extended Dayton's tour of duty for an additional two years and gave him the added responsibility of serving as deputy to President Barack Obama's Middle East Envoy George Mitchell. The United States has already poured over $300 million into the new PA army and the acknowledged prospect of that army attacking the State of Israel has not deterred Washington from continuing to arm, train and finance it.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Anglican Friends of Israel, May 26, 2010.

We received this statement from the Israeli Embassy on the 'Flotilla to Gaza':


The Flotilla to Gaza: A publicity stunt, not a genuine aid convoy

Since last year's January cease fire, 133 million liters of fuel entered Gaza from Israel — That's more than enough fuel to fill the fuel tank of every car and truck in Israel!

Since the ceasefire, well over a million tons of humanitarian supplies entered Gaza from Israel — That's almost a ton of aid for every man woman and child in Gaza.

Israel transfers food, medicines, clothing and school-books for all Gazans, but Hamas demands concrete for its reinforced bunkers, from which they will be able to continue to fire rockets at Israeli schools and hospitals. Nevertheless, despite the need to restrict the supply of building materials for this reason, Israel has this week allowed 6 trucks loaded with 250 tons of cement, one truck loaded with 5 tons of iron and 15 trucks loaded with gravels to enter Gaza for building projects operated and executed by UNRWA.

Israel transfers 15,000 tons of real aid to Gaza each and every week — so a flotilla claiming to carry 10,000 tons of concrete is clearly about a different agenda.

International aid groups send their aid to Gaza through the Israeli humanitarian pipeline, while publicity seekers merely exploit the humanitarian agenda to promote their own media stunts.

In 2009 alone, 10,544 patients and their companions left the Gaza Strip for medical treatment in Israel.

Humanitarian aid flows into Gaza daily, except when the crossings are rocketed by the Hamas regime.

In 2009, 21,200 international organization staff members entered the Gaza Strip, and some 4,883 tons of medical equipment and medicine were brought in.

Israel is now coordinating the transfer of 200,000 laptops for Gaza schoolchildren.

Transferring Aid to Gaza through Existing Channels

Israel maintains land crossings into Gaza, through which food, fuels and other materials are supplied. These transfer points operate despite numerous Palestinian terrorist attacks on the crossings, which have cost Israeli lives.

There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, although Hamas attempts to portray the situation as such. Enormous amounts of supplies and humanitarian aid cross into the Strip on a regular basis. Each day, many dozens of trucks carrying supplies are transported from Israel to the Gaza Strip.

The land crossing points remain the most efficient means for the transfer of goods. Reputable international organizations, such as the Red Cross, regularly use these crossings to deliver supplies and transfer personnel. Israel is very willing to assist the organizers of the flotilla in using the land crossings, in the same manner as it does for the other international organizations.

Given that sufficient land crossings are open and that Israel has invited the organizers to use them, the flotilla clearly is both futile and a publicity stunt. If the organizers were truly interesting in providing humanitarian aid, as opposed to engaging in publicity stunts, they would utilize the proper channels to ensure delivery.

Millions of dollars worth of international food aid continually flows through the Israeli humanitarian apparatus, ensuring that there is no food shortage in Gaza. Food and supplies are shipped from Israel to Gaza daily.

Despite attacks by Hamas, Israel maintains an ongoing humanitarian corridor for the transfer of food items to Gaza. This conduit is used by internationally recognized organizations including the United Nations and the Red Cross.

Large quantities of essential food items like baby formula, wheat, meat, dairy products and other, are transferred daily and weekly to Gaza.

In a typical week the IDF coordinates the transfer of hundreds of trucks containing about 15,000 tons of supplies: during the week of May 18, 2010 there were 65 trucks of fruit and vegetables; 22 truckloads of sugar, some 27 truckloads of meat, poultry and fish; and 40 trucks of dairy products and more than 100 truckloads of animal food.

During the first quarter of 2010 some 553 tons or 40 trucks of milk powder and baby food were shipped to the Strip. One hundred and eight trucks of rice, 164 trucks of clothing and shoes, 1,115 trucks of wheat and 1,753 trucks of various food products including vegetables and cheese went through. These items were channeled through aid organizations or via the private sector.

In 2009, more than 738,000 tons of food and supplies entered Gaza. During holidays, Israel increases transfers. During the Muslim feast Eid al-Adha, Israel shipped some 11,000 head of cattle into the Strip.

Maintaining Medical Aid for All in Need

No Palestinian is denied medical care in Israel. Israel maintains a corridor for the transfer of medical patients out of Gaza, and about 200 medical staff go through the crossings every month.

Israel helps coordinate the transfer of Jordanian doctors into Gaza.

In 2009 alone, 10,544 patients and their companions left the Gaza Strip for medical treatment in Israel.

The Israeli Hadassah Medical Organization in Jerusalem donates $3 million in aid annually to treat Palestinians in Israel.

Since 2005, Palestinians exploited medical care arrangements more than 20 times to carry out terror attacks.

In the first quarter of 2010, Israel shipped 152 trucks of medical supplies and equipment into Gaza.

A new CAT scan machine was recently shipped to Gaza.

In a typical week (in May 2010), some 37 truckloads of hygiene products were shipped to Gaza.

In 2009, 21,200 international organization staff members entered the Gaza Strip, and some 4,883 tons of medical equipment and medicine were brought in.

Contact Anglican Friends of Israel at their website: www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, May 26, 2010.

1. You will all be pleased to hear that Noam Chomsky again met with the Hezbollah in Lebanon this week and attended a Salute to Nasrallah event
(http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/05/23/chomsky-met-with- hezbollah-official-in-lebanon/) — evidently the same event in which Nasrallah called for bombing ships bound for Israel (see
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/137702).

2. When does the Israeli Moonbatocracy NOT scream against destruction of Arab homes? See this:
http://israeltheviewfromhere.blogspot.com/2010/05/ house-demolitions-things-are-never-as.html

3. Well, one of the happiest events of the week — nay, of the year — was the (re-) sentencing of ultra-leftist shyster Shammai Leibowitz to 20 months hard prison time in the US. Leibowitz, the 39 year old grandson of the late Yeshayahu Leibowitz (himself a fascinating mix of serious knowledge of Judaism with leftist flakiness) is best known for his campaigns on behalf of Arab terrorists and his defending arch-murderer and terrorist Marwan Barghouti (with New Israel Fund money!!). Before that he was the lawyer of choice for International Solidarity Movement accomplices to the Hamas.

As you may recall, Shammai got himself into a jam in the US when the FBI discovered he was leaking to the media documents he had been hired by the same FBI to translate. Shammai has been living in the US (he has dual citizenship) and got a job working as a translator for the FBI. The fact that the FBI would hire this collaborator with terrorism from Israel tells you a lot about how much "intelligence" there is inside the skulls of the heads of the FBI these days.

Shammai had signed a plea agreement last year but evidently tried to back out of it. In it, he confessed to engaging in the leaking of sensitive documents to bloggers and to a pro-terror Palestinian group, the "Electronic Intifada." See
http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2010/05/ former-new-israel-fund-fellow-shamai-lei/

Anyway, evidently Shammai tried to back out of the plea and the matter went to DC court, where Shammai this week got sentenced to doing the 20 months he agreed to in his plea. Lawyer tricks did not help him this time.

Now here is a math problem for you. If Shammai gets 20 months in the US slammer for leaking two documents to the media, just how much jail time should the leftist spy Anat Kamm and her Haaretz handler Uri Blau, the current darlings of Israel's Left, get for stealing more than 2000 military documents and leaking their contents?

Why he was not given a sentence at least as long as Pollard's is not clear.

Well, yes, it IS clear. Evidently Shammai was spying for the Palestinians! Did he also leak materials to the New Israel Fund? Enquiring minds want to know!

I just love the idea of Shammai making license plates and serving as a prison sissy for some big tattooed gangbanger missing his front teeth and wearing gang colors. I will try to get you his prison mailing address in case you want to mail him a carton of cigarettes or maybe a cake with a rubber file inside? See also this:
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/ shamai_leibowitz_and_the_crack

He has his own blog here:

4. I have a confession.

I despise the TV show "Sex and the City," fantasize about slapping and then sending the characters in it to a nunnery, and think that Chris Noth should have ended his acting career getting shot in "Law and Order." The "Sex and the City" movies are even worse.

Nevertheless, I am suddenly tingling with delight that the four skanks in their new movie go to Abu Dhabi and upset the Islamists. Radical Moslem blogs are already threatening a new wave of violence against the offenders, which will recall their anti-cartoon riots.

See this.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/ 05/sex_and_the_cit_5.php
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/25/ muhammad-cartoons-everywhere/

I had a dream last night of Islamists throwing shoes at the visiting hussies — all Gucci designer shoes from Fifth Avenue. 5. "Elvis" Costello, a "singer" in the loose sense of the word, decided he is boycotting Israel and will not perform here. See

I think we should all say a Birkat Ha-Gomel for being rescued from that imminent musical threat to our health and well being.

6. University of Haifa anti-Zionist "New Historian"; Discovers that Israel Itself Caused the 1973 Yom Kippur War because it refused to make peace with Egypt
http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20 pages/HaifaU%20-%20Uri%20Bar-Joseph%20-%20 Israel%20to%20blame%20for%2073%20war.htm

7. Tel Aviv University — On anti-Semitic web site, TAU's Ran HaCohen (Dept of Comparative Literature) explains that Israel is "Colonizing" ... Israel
http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ TAU%20-%20Ran%20HaCohen%20-%20Israel% 20colonizing%20Israel.htm

8. Tel Aviv University — Ariella Azoulay (Dept of Arts) has Nightime Fantasies about the Palestinian "Right of Return"
http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ TAU%20-%20Ariella%20Azoulay%20-%20nighttime% 20fantasy.htm

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Post Futurist, May 26, 2010.

What I don't like is how Israel is being used as a 21st century Christ to as be nailed to the cross for the sins of humanity.

Contact Post Futurist by email at p0stfuturist@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 26, 2010.


The draft declaration at the nuclear forum mentions Israel, India, and Pakistan as non-signatories to the non-proliferation treaty. It names North Korea as a violator of the treaty but not the IAEA determination that Iran is a violator of the treaty for many years and in many ways.

Iran warned that if it were mentioned, it would cite Western powers as violators for spreading nuclear technology. Iran gave no specifics. Iran may suppose that the U.S. helped Israel gain nuclear technology (IMRA, 5/25/10).

The U.S. had no interest in Israel acquiring that technology, would have preferred Israel not get it, and did not help it. Some people suspected that the purpose of the conference was an Obama desire to "get Israel" and score PR points with the Muslims. His

neglect of Iran is not strengthening U.S. national security.


The BBC and other media write about a non-existent humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The flotilla is launched to generate more anti-Israel propaganda over it. Reporting is slanted to omit the affluence in Gaza.

When passengers disembarked from the prior flotilla, they went souvenir-shopping in well-stocked shops. On the other hand, poverty exists almost everywhere, including parts of Tel Aviv and backwater Negev towns in Israel. Journalists rarely report that. They report what they want you to see.

In both parts of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), there is a middle and upper class. There are Olympic-sized swimming pools, fancy restaurants, crowded malls, and wind-surfing competition on Gaza beaches, as well as the much-reported lower class, used for propaganda. The media laments shortages of water and building material, and ignores the Olympic-sized swimming pools.

The Lonely Planet guidebook mentions "steak au poivre and chicken cordon bleu" at the Roots Club in Gaza. The menu is in English, to attract people from the UN, NGOs, and the media, which do not report about it. The manager told the source that many Palestinian Arabs dine there.

The media drums upon a theme of poverty caused by Israel. This theme leads to hatred of Israel, probably its purpose (IMRA, 5/25/10 from Tom Gross).

When Israel ran Gaza, it greatly increased the standard of living and the longevity of life. Afterwards, the Palestinian Authority ended much of the market economy and rule of law. It further discouraged enterprise by extortion, monopoly, and war.

The media's anti-Israel slant reminds one of the false reports from the first Lebanon War that the IDF had devastated most of Lebanon's cities. The truth is that most of the cities were spared, but the photos showed the few blocks of destruction. Some photos were of earlier, Lebanese civil war damage.

The same kind of alarmist reporting exaggerated many-fold the number of casualties and the damage in Jenin. The damage was confined to a portion of the so-called refugee camp within the much larger city. Casualties turned out to be a small fraction of what originally was claimed and proclaimed. Some of those casualties and some of the damage occurred because the PLO had booby-trapped their own people's apartment houses, causing them to collapse.

If the Arabs did not fight like war criminals, by fighting from among civilian populations whose lives and property the terrorists therefore risk, how little civilian loss of life and property there would be! Jihadists do not care about their own people. The terrorists are responsible for their own people's suffering but get the media and UN to blame Israel for it. The predictable media and UN reaction bears some moral responsibility for Arab suffering, too. So much for humanitarian sentiment by the media, UN, NGOs, and other Israel-bashers!


Lively community board meeting in New York on the mosque (A.P./Craig Ruttle)

A Manhattan community board approved the project to build the bigger of two mosques near where radical Muslims bombed the World Trade Center.

Some members of the audience, who lost relatives there, protested. Their sensibilities were disregarded. Someone from the area thought this is a good area to teach tolerance (Javier C. Hernandez, NY Times, 5/26/10, A23).

[People in the neighborhood as well as firefighters from all over the country have suffered from cancer caused by the gases released from the destroyed and burning buildings. Some of that suffering continues.]

Bret Stephens reports and interprets the event differently, as a test case for tolerance by Muslims. The Kuwaiti-born project sponsor, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, portrays the project as leading to Muslim Americanization. His wife, who runs the American Society for Muslim Advancement, foresees interfaith activity.

The imam's Americanization and tolerance self-portrayal is reported by some to be a sham. One is that he denies that Muslims perpetrated 9/11. Another is that he urged the U.S. to let religions judge their members by their own religious law. That means replacing some American law with Islamic law. Mr. Stephens suggests that the $100 million to be raised for the New York Islamic center would be better spent on interfaith activity in Arab and Pakistani cities.

Here is what Stephens thinks the Community Board should ask the imam and wife:

1. Who attacked New York on 9/11, and what was their religion? [And was it a factor?]

2. Is jihadist violence [meaning aggressive violence] and suicide bombing permissible anywhere, including against U.S. troops in Iraq or anywhere else?

3. Does the Jewish state have a right to exist in Israel?

4. Are Hamas and Hizbullah terrorist organizations, as the State Dept. rates them? Do they consider the Moslem Brotherhood extreme?

5. What aspects of Islamic law do they repudiate?

6. Would their center accept participation by gay and lesbian Muslims?

7. Would foreign funding for the center influence its program, and how?

8. Since they are proceeding with the center despite bombing-victims' sensibilities, are they willing to display pictures of their Prophet, despite Muslim sensibilities? (Wall St. J., 5/25/10, A17.)

Beware, interfaith activity often is a vehicle for an aggressive religion to chip away at other religion(s), rather than recognize their legitimacy! Beware, radical Muslims are skilled at portraying themselves as moderate, in order to gain acceptance rather than deportation. I have reported on this a number of times.


The U.S. has concentrated on fighting Islamists. But they keep coming. This compels other approaches, such as deprogramming and rehabilitating radicals.

Egypt let terrorist organizations stay together in prison, where reformed leaders might persuade followers to reform. They discuss their ideology and what is wrong with it. This approach has had some success. Without research on recidivism, it is difficult to tell whether such programs are sincere.

Yemen had a program for rehabilitating captured jihadists that was too lax. Little retraining and supervision involved. It was a form of parole [like American "liar mortgages.'] Recidivism was high. The program was canceled.

Saudi Arabia fleshed out a program. Applicants underwent psychological evaluation and other screening. There follows extensive re-education, mostly of recruits and those poorly educated in their religion, using Islamic scholars whose religious authority the prisoners respect. Inmates can debate or discuss with scholars via intercom. Ex-prisoners stay at comfortable half-way houses. Then they are paid to start a new life.

The difficulty with the Saudi program, aside from its expense, that other countries cannot readily afford, is that the Saudi's Wahabi version of the faith encourages jihad. The program therefore does not prohibit jihad but differentiates sanctioned from non-sanctioned forms of it. Recidivism is not studied there. Is the program effective or a show for the West? President Obama praised the program, but is he over-eager to transfer Guantanamo inmates to Saudi Arabia?

U.S. detention centers in Iraq initially allowed extremists to turn moderate Muslim inmates into Islamists. Now the U.S. separates extremists from moderates. "Each incoming detainee now undergoes a thorough background check, and psychologists analyze education, skills, motivation, and religiosity..." Vetted imams talk with prisoners. They educate the majority in several ways, including work training and in how to read the religious texts for themselves.

Again, estimates of recidivism vary. However, inmates due to be released prefer to complete their programs. Iraqis ask the U.S. to enroll their non-incarcerated children in the program.

Singapore believes that it takes a man of God to revise a terrorist's belief he is serving God. Its program involves one-on-one conversations between imam and convict. The family is screened, too. When the case officer, imam, and psychologist agree to release the inmate, he goes out with help in getting work, appointments for future counseling, and support for the family. No known recidivism, but the number of graduates is small.

British police work with Muslims to identify youth having radical tendencies. Rehabilitation includes not only anti-radical reprogramming but efforts to alleviate feelings of alienation. However, some of the youths who turned radical were not alienated. Britain may be picking radicals, such as Tariq Ramadan may be, to do the rehabilitation. Many British Muslims refuse to join the program. British Muslim prisoners may be in process of getting more radical.

A moderate Canadian Muslim has developed a program emphasizing tolerance, peace and a broader-minded faith than the Wahabbi sect has. This program emphasizes Islamist misinterpretations of history. No recidivism figures for it.

Such programs need to eradicate sympathy for jihad, or else ex-inmates may assist jihad by fundraising or other activities not in themselves violent (Katherine Seifert, Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2010, pp. 21-30)

The U.S. program respects the Islamic religion while it tries to defang the aggressive violence of the Islamist interpretation.


In retaliation for Gaza terrorists firing four more rockets and mortars into Israel, the Israeli Air Force bombed two tunnels built to permit terrorists to sneak into Israel from below ground (IMRA, 5/26/10).

Who digs those war facilities and arms smuggling tunnels? Who smuggles the arms in? Not troops. Are they therefore civilians?

In my opinion, no. They may not be on the Hamas payroll, and they may not themselves carry weapons, but either they are part of the immediate war effort or are responsible for the risk to themselves when they build or use the war facility. When they get killed, they should not be considered civilians, as if Israel did something wrong in liquidating them.

Calling the bombing of tunnels "retaliation" is peculiar The tunnels exist primarily to boost Hamas war materiel and maneuvering for terrorism. They are legitimate targets whether Hamas or its allies fired rockets that week or not. By waiting to call a limited destruction of tunnels "retaliation," Israel misses the opportunity to crimp Hamas' armaments sooner.

Since apparently Israel knows the location of many tunnels, it should bomb all the ones leading to Israel. It should advise Egypt of the locations of all tunnels leading to Sinai, to see whether Egypt would wreck their Sinai portion. If Egypt does not, then Egypt's complicity with jihad would be demonstrated. Perhaps Israel is afraid to confirm that complicity, since it is pretending that Egypt is a constructive force. In any case, what Egypt does not demolish, Israel should, but from the Gaza side.


General Petraeus has ordered widespread military reconnaissance over Iran and more clandestine military activity in the Mideast. Whether intended as a signal of U.S. determination or not, it appears to signify that. U.S. officials acknowledge that the reconnaissance prepares for possible raids (IMRA, 5/26/10).

The New York Times indicated that the Pentagon may be gathering some of its own intelligence, rather than relying upon the over-stretched staff of the CIA.

Reconnaissance over Iran may be intended to prepare to squelch Iranian attacks on U.S. facilities, if Israel raids Iran. It also may be just a bluff, for Iran, Israel, and the American public, while the Obama administration dithers until doomsday.


U.S. envoy Mitchell said that both Israel's PM Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority head Abbas both are sincere in wanting negotiations to succeed and to make peace.

He said Hamas, an extremist organization that uncompromisingly calls for the destruction of Israel, complicates the process. When the time comes, however, he said that any party that accepts principles of peace and democracy is eligible to participate (IMRA, 5/26/10).

That is like saying, we'll end WWII or the Cold War if the Nazis or the Communists, fresh for making aggression for fanatical reasons, suddenly promise to behave, we will make peace with them. No suspicion that they may be faking it?

Why expect Hamas to embrace democracy and peace, when Abbas does not? He runs a dictatorship. Mitchell is being misleading about that, inasmuch as what Abbas demands would get Israel conquered — admission into Israel of millions of vengeful Arabs. Abbas has said that if he does not get what he wants, he would make war. Indeed, he indoctrinates his people in its desirability. Some peace maker!

Nor does he compromise on anything. Considering that the Arabs already have a state in Palestine, called Jordan, true compromise would involve the Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza moving there and leaving the rest to the Jews.

Mitchell is not being truthful about Abbas in other ways. He said he is not in a hurry for negotiations, he can ask the UN to make him a state. By taking the Arabs' side, Obama reduced any slight inclination to compromise.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, May 26, 2010.

We are the Secular Christians for Zion — the SC4Z. We support the Patriots of Israel not because of matters of religion but because we regard Israel as the boulder on the path of Islamic imperialism. We want a larger boulder. No, we NEED a larger boulder!

We understand you are a visiting professional in the journalism department at Stanford University. We read your article about Gaza and your stated objections to the blame being cast upon Israel for the supposedly hapless condition of the Arabs occupying that region. Your article dwelt at length on the supposedly wretched living conditions in Gaza. However, this emphasis upon the latter point begs several questions:

1) If these Arabs who now call themselves "Gazans," are so hapless and impoverished, why do they all look so well dressed and well fed? In the photos we have seen, both online or as presented by Reuters, the Arabs who are hurling rocks and lobbing bombs at Israeli civilians are seemingly all the same age and none of them appear to be poor little ten year olds. More like ages 18 to 30 and shod in new shoes and designer jeans; the same age as most of American troops in Iraq. Why, if you intend to defend Israel, do you not buttress your argument on behalf of israel with reference to established international law which almost a hundred years ago — in 1920 — decided the legal foundation for and delineated the boundaries of the Jewish Homeland? These boundaries encompass Gaza, the entire West Bank, most of the Golan Heights, and most of the region that became the new Hashemite nation of Jordan.

2) Have you ever thought of asking why, during the scorching heat of summer, so many of these supposed "Arabs" are cloaked from head to toe in apparel and gloves and masks, all of which conceal the terrorist's ethnicity. Which suggests that many of these supposed "poor poor Arabs" are in fact foreign mercenaries ... Muslim thugs from the Sudan and Uganda, or quite possibly the remains of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin's goons who are likened to the Ton-ton Macoute. (Remember him? The Beast of Africa? To whom the Saudi royals gave refuge? — Idi Amin lived in luxury in Saudi Arabia until he died there, reportedly in 2003.)

For a refresher course in international law pertaining to the Jewish Homeland, we recommend Prof. Howard Grief's meticulously researched and recently published book The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law reviewed by Wm. Mehlman at:

Quoting from the review: "With The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law (Mazo Publishers, Jerusalem — available at www.amazon.com) Canadian-born Israeli constitutional scholar and lawyer Howard Grief has given us a book that shatters every myth, lie, misrepresentation and distortion employed over the 61 years of Israel's existence to negate the sovereign rights of the Jewish People to their national home."

Our position: International law ends land disputes and resolves them in favor of Israel.

We say: No more begging for peace: International law prevails over all Islamic claims to the lands of Israel. All Jews "wherever they are to be found" must demand the restoration of the lands of "Jewish Palestine" to Israel and the US is bound by Treaty to support these demands or else the US and the Euroids will fall victim to the schemes of the UN and its Islamic functionaries. We predict that Israel can expect many loud and underhanded skirmishes from Israel's resident seditionists and their Euroid enablers because application of international law will end their careers.

The actions of Jewish leaders who agreed to cede away Israel's lands were "ultra vires" (beyond the scope of their legal authority) and therefore such concessions can and must be renounced and reversed.

The next question a journalist should ask is whether the US State Dept. is now utilizing the same persuasive tools on Netanyahu as were applied to Gorbachev, to wit: offering him a promise of a comfortable future lifestyle either in the US or some other hidden place. Funds to be provided to Netanyahu if he "cooperates" — and withholding funds to the nation of Israel and increasing US funds to Mubarak, if he doesn't.

We think a review of the rewards accorded to Gorbachev and how the State Dept. turned him might shed some light on Netanyahu's secretiveness and his double-talk to the people of Israel. Turning Gorbachev served the national interests of the free world, but turning Netanyahu away from Israel will accomplish just the opposite and prove disastrous not only to Israel but to the US and the rest of the free world.

Viva to Professor Howard Grief and the Patriots of Israel.

Respectfully yours — Paul la Demain

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Professor Louis Rene Beres and Major General (IDF/Res.) Ben-Israel, May 25, 2010.

Israel's Strategic Future, a special report of the Project Daniel Group, was presented to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on January 16, 2003. Among other things, the report asserted that under no circumstances should Iran be allowed to "go nuclear." This firm position stemmed from our understanding that stable deterrence could never exist with a nuclear Iran led by the current extreme regime, and that Iran's belligerent stance toward Israel had remained openly genocidal.

Iran has moved steadily forward with plans to build and deploy nuclear weapons. On April 8, 2008, Iran's "National Day of Nuclear Technology," President Ahmadinejad announced his intent to install 6,000 additional centrifuges at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Now no serious observer could any longer accept the argument that Iran seeks nuclear power only for peaceful purposes.

International law is not a suicide pact. Every state has not only the right, but also the obligation, to protect its citizens from aggression. This expectation is beyond any moral or legal question when a determined and possibly irrational enemy seeks nuclear weapons.

Ideally, Israel could deter any Iranian WMD attack by maintaining a credible posture of nuclear deterrence. But this is not your father's Cold War, and Israel's notably small size leaves Jerusalem very little room for strategic error. Not surprisingly, Israel continues to maintain a prudent plan for active defense against future Iranian missiles. The plan's indispensable core is the Arrow anti-ballistic missile.

Still, no system of active defense can be "leak proof." And terrorist proxies, rather than missiles, could also be used to deliver Iranian nuclear weapons. It follows, as Project Daniel had advised PM Sharon, that Israel must consider and codify appropriate preemption options. Under international law, these essential options are known as "anticipatory self-defense."

For Israel, time is quickly running out. The Jewish state cannot fully depend upon its anti-ballistic missiles to defend against any future WMD attack from Iran any more than it can rely entirely upon nuclear deterrence. Even a near-perfect Arrow complemented by credible nuclear threats would not obviate Israel's preemption option.

Israel has the right of all states to act in anticipatory self-defense when facing an existential assault. The 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice even extends this right to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in certain residual circumstances. These are "live or die" situations where the only expected alternatives to preemption would be unendurable assaults by enemy states or their surrogates.

Israel certainly has no wish to act upon the 1996 ICJ Opinion. But it must continue to prepare for certain critical non-nuclear preemptions, and also to implement a maximally efficient missile interception capability. Should Iran somehow become nuclear, Israel would then have to significantly enhance the credibility of its nuclear deterrent (including a prompt end to the doctrine of nuclear ambiguity or "bomb in the basement"), and to deploy a suitable second-strike force. This recognizably invulnerable (hardened and dispersed) "countervalue" force would be fashioned to inflict a decisive retaliatory blow against selected Iranian cities.

Whenever possible, Israel will continue to seek security by peaceful means. But under no circumstances will it allow Iran to imperil its citizens with nuclear harms.

Louis Rene Beres of Purdue University is a long-time expert in international law. His articles have been published in Israel in Nativ; Btzedek; Haaretz; The Jerusalem Post; The Jerusalem Letter; Bulletin Of The Jerusalem Institute For Western Defence; and the Policy Paper Series of the Ariel Center. Professor Beres is Strategic and Military Affairs Analyst for The Jewish Press. He was Chair of Project Daniel.

Isaac Ben-Israel (Ph.D., Tel-Aviv University), is a former Member of Knesset, and has held several very senior posts in operations, intelligence and weapons development within the Israel Air Force. In January 1998 he was promoted to Major General, and appointed as Director of Defense R & D Directorate in the Israel Ministry of Defense. Later, he was Chair of the Israel Space Agency. Now retired from the IAF, and a Professor at Tel Aviv University, General Ben-Israel, while still an MK, served on the Knesset's Foreign Relations and Security Committee. He was a member of Project Daniel.

Contact Professor Beres by email at lberes@purdue.edu

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 25, 2010.

Yesterday the IDF put out an announcement regarding "gestures" to the PA that are about to be instituted: removal of some 60 (no this is not a typo) dirt roadblocks, opening of a checkpoint near Hevron, and unrestricted movement for Palestinian Arabs on the Kedar Road south of Ma'aleh Adumim. As always, these "gestures" present security risks to Israeli civilians.

But hey, the Palestinian Arabs have been so peaceful, so conciliatory in their outreach to us that they deserve this. Right? Those threats of violence, their boycott of our goods, their failure to even pretend to be negotiating in good faith — none of this matters.

I titled this post "Inexplicable," but actually it might better be called "Disgusting." In point of fact, what has happened is quite explicable: We are not "negotiating" with the PA at all, and not doing this for them. We are negotiating with the US administration, and moving to keep Obama happy. This is clear.


In fact, on Sunday Netanyahu actually complained that Mitchell is talking about different things to each side — allowing each side to raise the issues it wants. This means there is no give-and-take back and forth between the two sides, which is what"negotiations" are all about. It's a farce of considerable proportions. But, I am assuming, at some level this makes the man in the White House happy because he has "restarted" negotiations.


In the course of his statement concerning "negotiations," Netanyahu denied that he discussed a land swap (which is what Abbas had claimed). In truth, we have no way to be certain, but if the two sides are talking about different things, maybe Abbas discussed this with Mitchell, and that's as far as it went.


One of the so-called "gestures" that was advanced was permission for 50 licensed Israeli tour guides to bring groups into Jericho and Bethlehem, areas under the control of the PA. But the Israeli Tour Guide Association has put out a statement "forcefully" objecting to this and demanding the cancellation of this provision. Tour guides would be exposed to danger, the statement says. Besides which, they would be confronting additional competition, as a commensurate number of Palestinian Arab tour guides would be permitted to lead tours inside of Israel.

Is anyone thinking, when these "gestures" are proposed?


There is increased movement in the international community to make nice with Syria. French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner has just called on Syrian president Bashar Assad. While German foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, who visited two days ago, went on record as saying, "Whoever wishes to support the peace process in the Middle East must also seek talks with Syria."

Considering Syria's role in smuggling weaponry to Hezbollah, this is a decidedly bad turn of events. And it is the US we have to thank for it. For it was a shift in US policy that took Syria out of diplomatic isolation. Among those visiting Syria in the last few days was Senator John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a strong proponent of engagement with Syria; this is his third visit since 2009.


If you doubt that a shift in US policy has radically effected the situation vis-a-vis Syria, please consider Assad's words:

In an interview with the Italian paper La Republica, yesterday, he said that Americans have lost their influence. Now he blames it on the fact that they "don't do anything for peace," but put more broadly, it means that Obama has pulled back, declining to be a strong force in this part of the world.

Said Assad: "Out of this failure, what's emerging out of necessity is another alternative — a geostrategic map that aligns Syria, Turkey, Iran and Russia linked by politics, common interests and infrastructure."

Scary stuff, and this is not about "peace" but power. Russia is eager to be a counterweight to US influence, while Syria is more closely allied with Iran than ever, and the Turks also see the handwriting on the wall. No "engagement" with Kerry is going to change this.


Meanwhile we are engaged in our fourth annual nationwide civil defense drill — this simulates the situation we would have to deal with if attacked by Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas.

Syria responded with unease to this, seeing in it a bit of saber-rattling. Netanyahu was quick to offer reassurance:

"I would like to make it clear that it is not the result of any exceptional security development. On the contrary, Israel wants calm, stability and peace.

"However it is no secret that we live in a region that is under the threat of missiles and rockets. Israel's best defense against this threat is — first of all — maintaining deterrence and the IDF's decisive capability, and these we develop without letup."

But, said our prime minister, it was "important to bolster citizens' awareness vis-a-vis the protection issue..."


Myself, I'm not adverse to a bit of muscle flexing — this seems to me part of deterrence. What is deplorable for me — and many others — is the sense of our being "sitting ducks," with Hezbollah acquiring those rockets and missiles in the north. Such acquisitions are not intended for peaceful purposes, we can be sure. Sooner or later...

Material has come out on the Internet, some of which has been shared with me by deeply worried readers, indicating a possibility that we will get hit by Hezbollah — using non-conventional weapons — this summer. I've checked several sources, and all confirm my gut feeling on this, which is that such predictions are very "iffy." One knowledgeable source said that Iran wants things to remain quiet right now and is unlikely to stir up Hezbollah within the next few months.

Bottom line for me here is that whatever intelligence has been acquired by sources predicting such attacks is also in the hands of our IDF — such intelligence and a great deal more. At the end of the day, nothing I can write, or encourage my readers to promote, will make an iota of difference with regard to this. It falls to the IDF and our intelligence services to stay on top of the situation and to respond with appropriate force when the time comes. I trust that they will.

Would I like to see a pre-emptive attack on our part at the appropriate time? Oh yes! But, needless to say, this is not in my hands.

Our leaders, our defense decision-makers, our intelligence brass, all have to do their utmost — with fierce determination to protect our people and our nation. But at the end of the day, it's in the hands of Heaven.


A "Freedom Flotilla" of ships is in the Mediterranean headed toward the coast of Gaza, with the declared intention of breaking the (non-existent) "blockade" being maintained by Israel. I want to address this is some more detail tomorrow, for the PR being put out misleads severely.

The goal of this project, very clearly, is political and not humanitarian. See this statement by Yigal Palmor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman:

"Since the ceasefire in January 2009, well over a million tons of humanitarian supplies entered Gaza from Israel — that is almost a ton of aid for each man, woman and child in the Strip.

"The land crossings remain the most efficient system to transfer goods to Gaza, and the flotilla organizers are well aware of this fact. The organizers also know that since December 2008, their ships have been denied permission to land.

"Israel has invited the organizers of the flotilla to use the land crossings, in the same manner as all the reputable international organizations.

"However, they are less interested in bringing in aid than in promoting their radical agenda, playing into the hands of Hamas provocations. While they have wrapped themselves in a humanitarian cloak, they are engaging in political propaganda and not in pro-Palestinian aid.

If the organizers were truly interesting in providing humanitarian aid — as opposed to engaging in publicity stunts — they would use the proper channels to ensure delivery of any supplies."


See also, with thanks to Jacob G., this link to a Palestinian magazine from December 2009, which shows some of the products in generous quantities, agricultural and otherwise, available to Gazans, who are said to be totally without:


It's good news, and way past due, that we are likely to see a bill passed by the Knesset that would severely limit the perks provided to security prisoners (largely Hamas) in our prisons. What we offer them now — which is insane — far exceeds what is required by international law. There are different versions being proposed, but support for this is strong and whatever final version emerges is highly likely to pass, with three readings required.

This is, to begin with, simply the right thing to do. There is no reason why Arabs who killed Jews or attempted to do so, or are allied with those who seek to do so, should be able to acquire degrees while in our prisons, or watch television, or have parties in their cells.

Beyond this, the desire to secure the release of Gilad Shalit is motivating this legislation. The hope is that families of those in our prisons will pressure Hamas to let Shalit go, in order to secure more leniency in the conditions for their relatives. Keeping Shalit becomes, at least in theory, a liability.


Astrophysicists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, and some of their associates abroad, have identified a new type of exploding star. Prior to this, two kinds of supernovae had been identified — hot, young giants that collapse under their own weight, and old, dense white dwarves that blow up. The newly discovered supernova fits a different pattern — with high levels of calcium and titanium being thrown out as the star explodes, suggesting a nuclear reaction involving helium. It is believed that this discovery may shed light on some previously unexplained phenomenon in the universe.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Brother Shane, May 25, 2010.

Liviu Librescu

As a disturbed individual was randomly shooting his colleagues at Virginia Tech, a Jewish Holocaust survivor blocked a classroom door to protect his students from the shooter. This 77-year-old engineering professor heroically sacrificed his life on Holocaust Memorial Day by taking bullets the shooter meant for his students.

Rest in peace, Liviu Librescu

At least Romania knows how to honor their heroes...

Librescu was posthumously awarded the Order of the Star of Romania, Romania's highest civilian honor.

From the looks of it, he should've gotten 2 or 3 Nobel Prizes...

Life and career

Liviu Librescu was born in 1930 to a Jewish family in the city of Ploieşti, Romania. After Romania allied with Nazi Germany in World War II, his father, Isidore Librescu, was deported to a labor camp in Transnistria, and later his family, along with thousands of other Jews, was deported to a ghetto in the Romanian city of Focani.[5][6] As a boy, Librescu was interned in a labor camp in Transnistria. He may also have spent time in a Soviet labor camp.[6] His wife, Marlena, who is also a Holocaust survivor, told Israeli Channel 10 TV the day after his death, "We were in Romania during the Second World War, and we were Jews there among the Germans, and among the anti-Semitic Romanians."[5] Dorothea Weisbuch, a cousin of Librescu living in Romania, said in an interview to Romanian newspaper Cotidianul: "He was an extraordinarily gifted person and very altruist. When he was little, he was very curious and knew everything, so that I thought he would become very conceited, but it did not happen so; he was of a rare modesty."[7]

After surviving the Holocaust, Librescu was repatriated to Communist Romania.[5] He studied aerospace engineering at the Polytechnic University of Bucharest, graduating in 1952 and continuing with a Master's degree at the same university. He was awarded a Ph.D. in fluid mechanics in 1969 at the Academia de Ştiinţe din România.[8] From 1953 to 1975, he worked as a researcher at the Bucharest Institute of Applied Mechanics, and later at the Institute of Fluid Mechanics and the Institute of Fluid Mechanics and Aerospace Constructions of the Academy of Science of Romania.

His career stalled in the 1970s because he refused to swear allegiance to the Romanian Communist Party and was forced out of academia for his sympathies towards Israel.[5] When Librescu requested permission to immigrate to Israel, the Academy of Science of Romania fired him.[5][9] In 1976, a smuggled research manuscript that he had published in the Netherlands drew him international attention in the growing field of material dynamics.[10]

After years of government refusal, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin personally intervened to get the Librescu family an emigration permit by directly asking Romanian President Nicolae Ceauşescu to let them go.[5][11] They moved to Israel in 1978.

From 1979 to 1986, Librescu was Professor of Aeronautical and Mechanical Engineering at Tel Aviv University and taught at the Technion in Haifa.[11] In 1985, he left on sabbatical for the United States, where he served as Professor at Virginia Tech in its Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, where he remained until his death.[11][12] He served as a member on the editorial board of seven scientific journals and was invited as a guest editor of special issues of five other journals.[13] Most recently, he was co-chair of the International Organizing Committee of the 7th International Congress on Thermal Stress, Taipei, Taiwan, June 4-7, 2007, for which he had been scheduled to give the keynote lecture.[4][13] According to his wife, no Virginia Tech professor has ever published more articles than Librescu.[11]

Just an "average" Israeli citizen...

Contact Brother Shane by email at wisevirgin_777@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, May 25, 2010.

This was written by Caroline B. Glick.

Leftists, stop making money from Arab sources. Shame on you!


Over the past generation, the Left has inverted the terminology of human rights, freedom, morality, heroism, democracy and victimization

Courtesy of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, on Thursday Israel will again be the target of a jihadist-leftist propaganda assault. A flotilla of nine ships which set sail for Gaza from Cyprus earlier this week is scheduled to arrive at our doorstep.

The expressed aim of the flotilla's organizers is to unlawfully provide aid and comfort to Hamas — an illegal terrorist organization. Since it seized power in Gaza three years ago, Hamas, which is openly committed to the genocide of world Jewry and the physical eradication of Israel, has transformed the Gaza Strip into a hub of the global jihad. It has been illegally holding hostage Gilad Schalit incognito for four years. And it is continuously engaged in a massive, Iranian-financed arms buildup ahead of its next assault.

Beyond providing aid to Hamas, the declared aim of the "Free Gaza" movement is to coerce Israel into providing Hamas with an outlet to the sea.

This too is in contravention of international law which expressly prohibits states and non-state actors from providing any support to terrorist organizations.

IN SENDING out the latest group of ships, Turkey and its Irish, Greek and Swedish partners seek to appropriate the imagery of the Jewish pre-statehood struggle for independence from Britain.

In a bid to appease Hamas's jihadist precursors, in 1939 Britain's Mandatory authorities broke international law and prohibited Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine.

The League of Nations' letter of mandate for Britain specifically enjoined the British to facilitate Jewish immigration to the land of Israel. Yet following the Arab terror war from 1936-1939, the British issued the White Paper that all but prohibited Jewish immigration. This move blocked the one place on Earth where European Jews were wanted from accepting them and so trapped 6 million Jews in Hitler's Europe.

In the aftermath of the war, the British maintained their prohibition on Jewish immigration. To fight this British policy, the Zionist leadership in pre-state Israel organized the Aliya Bet program of illegal immigration. Jewish agents scoured the world for ships large enough to bring Europe's Jewish refugees to the land of Israel.

The ship most emblematic of the era was the Exodus. The Exodus which set sail from France in July 1947 with 4,515 Jewish Holocaust survivors on board was the Zionist response to a new British policy to force illegal immigrant ships to return to Europe.

The British rammed the Exodus in Haifa. They boarded and killed three Jewish defenders. They then forced its passengers to board British prison ships that would return them to Europe. French authorities denied the ships the right to land in France, so the British sailed on to Hamburg, Germany, where the refugees were forced to disembark.

The international outcry against Britain in the wake of the Exodus affair shamed London into cancelling its new policy. It also paved the way for Israel's independence 10 months later.

Now the Turkish, Greek, Swedish and Irish governments are colluding with Hamas to purloin the imagery of the Exodus and the heroism of the Jewish people in the years leading up to statehood and project that imagery onto a terrorist organization that seeks to complete Hitler's work. They further seek to invert reality by portraying Israel, which in accordance with international law is trying to contain and defeat Hamas, as a combination of the German Nazis and the British imperialists.

SO FAR, they are getting away with it. So far, for their efforts on behalf of a genocidal terrorist organization Erdogan and his ilk are being extolled as human rights champions. Barring any unexpected events, Israel will suffer yet another public relations disaster on Thursday when the ships approach Gaza.

How has this happened? How is it that we have become so overwhelmed by the Left's propaganda that most of our political leaders and intellectual elite are incapable of even describing the evil that it being advanced against us?

Over the past generation, the Left has commandeered our language. It has inverted the terminology of human rights, freedom, morality, heroism, democracy and victimization. Its perversion of language has made it nearly impossible for members of democratic, human rights respecting, moral societies to describe the threats they face from their human rights destroying, genocidal, tyrannical enemies. Thanks to the efforts of the international Left, the latter are championed as the victims of those they seek to annihilate.

Two incidents in recent weeks make clear just how disastrous the Left's wholesale theft of language and through it, their inversion of reality has been for Israel.

Last Monday, Noam Chomsky arrived at the Allenby Bridge and requested a visa to enter Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The police at the border refused his request. The radical leftist Israel-basher made a fuss and waited around for several hours before he went back to Jordan.

Chomsky left Jordan at the end of the week and travelled to Lebanon. For the second time in four years, on Friday Chomsky toured southern Lebanon with a Hizbullah guide. Now an official guest of Hizbullah, Chomsky is scheduled to give an address in Beirut Tuesday to celebrate the IDF's pullout from south Lebanon 10 years ago.

As David Hornik detailed in FrontPage Magazine on Friday, the leftist-dominated Israeli media went nuts when they discovered Chomsky had been turned away at the border. Yediot Aharonot and Haaretz heralded Chomsky as a great mind and proclaimed hysterically that the refusal to allow him to enter the country marked the end of Israeli democracy and the start of a slide into fascism. The Western media quickly piled on and within hours Israel's right to deny its avowed enemies entry was under assault.

And Chomsky is Israel's enemy. As Hornik pointed out, Chomsky has repeatedly defended Holocaust deniers while accusing Israel of being the ideological heir of Nazi Germany. When he hasn't been too busy championing the Khmer Rouge and Josef Stalin, and attacking the US as the Great Satan, Chomsky has devoted much time and energy to calling for Israel's eradication and defending Palestinian and Hizbullah terrorists.

IT WAS the government's job to point this out. But instead, faced with the leftist onslaught against its right to control its borders, the government crumpled. Instead of explaining that Chomsky is an enemy of Israel and an abettor and defender of genocide, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's spokesman Mark Regev apologized for the unpleasant reception Chomsky received at the Allenby Bridge. Regev also promised that if Chomsky returns, he will be granted an entry visa.

The government's cowardly handling of the Chomsky incident is testament to the Left's success at intimidating Western leaders to the point where instead of standing up to leftist propaganda and lies, they accept them as truth and even collaborate in disseminating them.

Probably the PMO figured no one would listen if it told the truth about Chomsky. It probably felt that defending the decision to bar Chomsky from the country would only elicit a second barrage of media attacks.

And perhaps they were right. But the fact that the Left would have remained unconvinced doesn't excuse the government's abject surrender of the truth about Chomsky to Israel's enemies on the Left who portray the MIT professor as a human rights activist and a great intellectual humanitarian. As David Horowitz and Peter Collier prove in their book The Anti-Chomsky Reader, there doesn't seem to be a tyrant that Chomsky hasn't championed or a victim that Chomsky hasn't demonized in the entire span of his 50-year career as a radical activist.

The government is not alone in its fear of exposing and fighting the Left's campaign to demonize the country.

THE RADICAL left's ability to block voices of dissent from its anti-Israel and anti-freedom positions was similarly demonstrated two weeks ago at Tel Aviv University's annual Board of Governors meeting.

For several years, a large, vocal group of tenured professors from the university have actively participated in the international campaign to boycott Israeli universities and academics while actively supporting Hamas and Hizbullah. That is, many Tel Aviv University professors, whose salaries are paid by university donors and Israeli taxpayers, have been using their university titles to undermine the university and to advance the cause of Israel's destruction.

This year the university's Board of Governors bestowed an honorary doctorate on Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz. In his acceptance speech, Dershowitz called these professors out for their vile behavior and named three of the most vocal enemies of the university and Israel on the international stage: Profs. Anat Matar, Rachel Giora and Shlomo Sand.

The university's tenured anti-Zionist activists were quick to retaliate. More than 80 professors signed a letter to university president Joseph Klaffter demanding that the university disassociate itself from Dershowitz's statements.

Klaffter was quick to oblige. At the Board of Governors meeting, Klaffter silenced board member Mark Tanenbaum when he tried to put forward a resolution calling for disciplinary action against university professors who use their university titles to defame the university or Israel. Klaffter, who isn't even a member of the Board of Governors, reportedly grabbed the microphone away from Tanenbaum and adjourned the meeting. Klaffter justified his physical denial of Tanenbaum's freedom of speech by claiming that he was defending academic freedom.

Like the Prime Minister's Office's apology to Noam Chomsky, Klaffter's action — aside from arguably being prohibited by his own university's constitution — was further proof of the Left's success in appropriating the language and imagery of freedom and tolerance in the service of forces that seek to destroy freedom and end tolerance.

ON THURSDAY Hamas's maritime enablers from Europe, Turkey and beyond will arrive at our doorstep. The navy will block their entry to Gaza. Israel will be demonized by terror-abettors disguised as human rights activists and journalists worldwide. And the story will pave the way for the next assault on Israel's right to exist.

This endless circle of demonization and aggression will continue to widen and escalate until our political leaders and our intellectual elite reclaim our language from those on the terror-abetting Left. True, our reclamation of our language will not go unopposed. But if we do not reassert our right to describe objective reality, our inability to explain why we are right and our detractors serve evil will be our undoing.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, May 25, 2010.

As Israel prepares to mark the anniversary of the June 1967 Six-Day War, it is time to recall what prompted the outbreak of the conflict, and the Palestinian terror and rejectionism which preceded it.

Indeed, with Washington now laying heavy pressure on Israel to retreat to the "Green Line" and create a Palestinian entity alongside our borders, we need to remind the world that Israel did not occupy Judea and Samaria — we won them fair and square in an act of self-defense.

As I suggest in the column below from the NY Jewish Press, it is time to stand firm and be strong, and declare once and for all that the "Green Line" has forever been replaced.

In its stead we now have Red Lines, and chief among them is this: we will never, ever give up territory again.

I would welcome your comments and feedback.


Michael Freund

May 21, 2010
The Jewish Press,


Next month marks the 43rd anniversary of the June 1967 Six Day War, when the Jewish state went from the brink of extinction to breathtaking victory.

Few times in the modern era has the guiding hand of Divine providence been as plain and clear for all to see as it was during that heady period, when our Arab neighbors threatened to annihilate Israel and cast its citizenry into the waters of the Mediterranean.

But the Jewish people turned the tables on our foes, and in less than a week, with G-d's help, we managed to reclaim the cradle of our civilization in the form of places such as Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

It was an emotional reunion, one that had taken more than 19 centuries to occur. But the love and the longing of the Jewish people for their G-d given land could not, and would not, be denied.

Sadly, however, with the passage of time, memories tend to dim and emotions often fade. And so instead of celebrating this annual miracle with all the verve and joy that it deserves, many on Israel's left descend into a state of semi-mourning.

In columns and editorials, they regularly bemoan the outcome of the war, grieving over the "occupation" of the territories and fantasizing about how good life would be without them.

Indeed, it almost seems that many would have preferred that Israel had lost the battle rather than having emerged victorious with the blue-and-white flag flying over Hebron and Jerusalem.

But what they conveniently ignore is everything that preceded the 1967 war: increased Palestinian terrorism, a large Arab military buildup, and the brazen threats by Arab leaders to exterminate the Jewish state.

In effect, left-wing Israeli proponents of withdrawal have cast a fog over history, shifting the focus away from the "whys" of the 1967 war, and replacing them instead with "why us?"

Most people forget, but two years prior to 1967, back when Israel was narrow and tiny and did not yet "occupy" anyone else's land, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol unveiled a peace plan that could have resolved the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all.

Speaking in the Knesset on May 17, 1965, Eshkol proposed to open direct negotiations with the Arab states with the aim of turning the 1949 armistice agreements into full-fledged peace treaties.

Pointing out that Israel's four Arab neighbors — Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon — together had 60 times the land area of the Jewish state, Eshkol suggested that the pursuit of war by the Arabs was a needless waste of human and material resources.

Instead, he laid out a vision of peace that would have included open borders, freedom of transit and communications, bilateral trade and economic cooperation, as well as access to the holy sites of all religions.

All he asked from the Arabs, said Eshkol, was "full respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the States in the region." It was a simple, yet compelling deal: peace for peace, with no strings attached.

But Israel's offer was met two years later with a clear and unequivocal Arab response. Egypt and Syria mobilized their armies and vowed to destroy the Jewish state.

Here is just a sampling of some of the Arab rhetoric at that time:

On May 20, 1967, Hafez Assad, who was then serving as Syria's defense minister, said, "Our forces are now entirely ready to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

On May 26, Egyptian president Nasser declared in a speech to his nation, "Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel."

At a press conference the following day, PLO founder Ahmad Shukeiry said, "D-Day is approaching. The Arabs have waited 19 years for this and will not flinch from the war of liberation."

And on May 30, Cairo Radio was even more explicit: "Israel has two choices, both of which are drenched with Israel's blood: Either it will be strangled by the Arab military and economic siege, or it will be killed by the bullets of the Arab armies surrounding it from the south, from the north and from the east." A week later, the war began.

And a week after that, it had ended, leaving Israel in control of Jerusalem, along with Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights.

Ever since, the world has been pressing us to go back to the pre-1967 frontiers and to give our foes the territory from which they sought to launch our destruction.

As a matter of fact, Washington is now laying heavy pressure on Israel to retreat to the "Green Line" and create a Palestinian entity alongside our borders, as though our acquisition of these territories was somehow illicit from the start.

But nothing could be further from the truth.

Israel did not occupy Judea and Samaria — we won them fair and square in an act of self-defense, and we should have no regrets for doing so.

The war of 1967 was one that Israel neither asked for nor initiated. And the time has come for us to stop apologizing for winning it. Instead, let's embrace the great gift that G-d has given us, by settling the land and filling it with Jews.

Our ancestors walked these areas centuries before the advent of Islam, and thousands of years before the establishment of the PLO, and we need not apologize for returning to the heartland of our proud and ancient heritage.

It is time for Israel to stand firm and be strong, and declare once and for all that the "Green Line" has forever been replaced.

In its stead we now have Red Lines, and chief among them is this: we will never, ever give up territory again.

Michael Freund is the founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which assists Anousim in Spain, Portugal and South America to return to the Jewish people.

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, May 25, 2010.

Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a former lawyer for Jonathan Pollard, says, "We must keep up the pressure regarding Pollard... he has served more than he should have."

Winding up a nine-day visit to Israel, Dershowitz says the continued incarceration of Pollard, in his 25th year of a life sentence in the United States, "is a scandal — not only for Israel; it's a scandal for America. He was treated so unfairly. America broke its deal; [it] broke its promise with him."

Pollard, in jail since 1985, was convicted on one count of releasing classified information to a U.S. ally — namely, Israel. The normal sentence for this crime is 2-4 years, whereas Pollard received a life sentence.

In a message to the Yeshivat Hesder of Sderot in honor of its upcoming annual dinner, Dershowitz said, "We must keep up the pressure regarding Pollard. I wouldn't ask for a pardon — I would ask for a commutation. A pardon suggests that he didn't do wrong, [but] by American law standards, he did. A commutation suggests that he served more than he should have and at this point it's due to free him."

"Cruel Hamas" Holding Shalit

Dershowitz also spoke about Natan Sharansky and Gilad Shalit: "We took that attitude [requesting commutation] with Sharansky. I was Sharansky's lawyer and we got him free, as well as many of the leaders of Israel today who were Prisoners of Zion and served in prison. Sharansky left on his own terms. When they tried to take away his Book of Psalms that kept him so vibrant in prison, he refused to let them... He was strong, he stood up to them, he looked them in the eye — and I hope that Gilad Shalit is doing the same thing. We have to have all of our efforts behind him, a young boy missing out on his youth because of the cruel, cruel Hamas not allowing proof if he's alive, not allowing the family, not allowing the Red Cross [to visit him]..."

"Goldstone Didn't Visit Him"

Prof. Richard Goldstone, author of the controversial Goldstone Report accusing Israel of war crimes in defending itself against Hamas terrorism, once again did not escape Dershowitz's wrath. "Goldstone had an opportunity, when he was in Gaza, to ask to see [Shalit]," Dershowitz said, "or to do something about it — and he did nothing. I think we all have to keep up our efforts on behalf of Gilad Shalit [and] on behalf of Jonathan Pollard."

The Affidavit: False Information "Weighed Heavily" in Life Sentence

Prof. Dershowitz filed an affidavit in March 1990 in which he quoted former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg as having accused the Justice Department of improperly "pandering" to the racial sensitivities of Pollard's sentencing judge. The affidavit states that this was done by providing Judge Audrey Robinson, a black man, "with false, inflammatory, ex parte information" regarding allegations that Pollard had helped the South African apartheid regime with secret information on nuclear technology.

"Justice Goldberg told me," Dershowitz stated in the affidavit, "that Judge Robinson had told him that the Pollard-South African connection had weighed heavily in his (Judge Robinson's) decision to impose a life sentence."

As the JonathanPollard.org website states, "This allegation [that Jonathan Pollard spied for South Africa] is completely false... Jonathan Pollard was never indicted for spying for South Africa."

US Apologized for Calling Pollard "Traitor" In addition, the U.S. Government was forced to apologize for allegations that Pollard is a "traitor" to the United States. The Pollard website states as follows: "Over the years American Government officials and other enemies of the case have falsely accused Jonathan Pollard of treason, and have referred to him as a 'traitor'. When challenged, they implausibly try to justify their use of this terminology by claiming that they intend the term 'traitor' according to some sort of popular usage and not in a legal sense. But even the Courts reject this kind of spurious rationalization, and they categorically reject the Government's attempts to slip-slide on this issue. During the oral arguments of September 1991, the Courts forced the US Government to apologize to Jonathan for falsely identifying him as a traitor in the Weinberger memo and in other statements. The Court notes the Government's apology in its 1992 decision."

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 25, 2010.


UNRWA school in Rafah, Gaza (AP/Eyad Baba)

About 20 armed men raided a children's camp that the UN is constructing in Gaza, and destroyed water tanks and other facilities. Hamas said it is investigating.

Hamas runs rival summer camps. The Hamas camps teach Islam; UN camps feature painting, swimming, and singing. A Hamas legislator has called the UN summer program "a plan to spoil the growing generation of Gaza." (Isabel Kershner, Fares Akram, New York Times, 5/25/10, A10.)

Connecting the dots, Hamas runs Gaza strictly and tightly, but implies it was unaware of the attack on camps that rival its own totalitarian program. Perhaps, but not likely. Dictatorships have thugs do their dirty work and then disavow it.

Here, the UN is trying to do something decent, and Hamas is abusing childhood to serve its totalitarian and imperialist statelet.

Just as there is very little international condemnation of Islamic oppression of women, there is even less international condemnation of Islamist abuse of children. The world pretends that the big threat to Gaza children is Israeli raids. The pretense includes willful blindness to the fact that in storing weapons in private houses and in firing alongside schools, Hamas commits war crimes. Therefore, under international law, Hamas is responsible for civilian casualties there.

Unfortunately, the Goldstone Report ignored Hamas responsibility. Without evidence and contrary to Israeli military doctrine, it accused Israel of deliberately firing at schools, etc., in order to kill children. Then why not schools where no Hamas forces were engaged?

By contrast with Israel not bringing the battle alongside UN schools, as Hamas did, and not trying to destroy UN facilities (I reported extensive IDF coordination with the UN to avoid that), Arab terrorists actually do attack UN facilities or rob humanitarian aid convoys.


Isabel Kershner and Fares Akram of the New York Times report the same news as my prior article, but cast it in a different light. Fact: "The five-day exercise, designed to test the readiness of civilians, the emergency services, and the local authorities in the case of war, is taking place for the fourth consecutive year. It comes amid growing concern in Israel about the rocket and missile capabilities of militant groups on its borders and the potential threat of a nuclear Iran.

Slant: The reporters describe Arab objections to the drills as a "rattling of nerves." (5/25/10, A10.)

Is the drill causing a "rattling of nerves, or is the response an attempt to rattle nerves? The newspaper reports what people say, whether what they say is truthful or not. This gives the benefit of the doubt to Islamist ideologues whose code encourages deceit of the West, which deceit is further encouraged by the seemingly naïve reporting in the West. But I do not think that the reporting is naïve, considering the Times' traditional anti-Zionism. I think it is malign or politically correct.

A realistic explanation is that the Lebanese response to Israeli drills is a combination of paranoia and propaganda. Arab propaganda is relentlessly aggressive, poses the Arabs as being the ones with grievances, and poses Israel as plotting against them. Actually, Iran is the puppeteer, pulling the strings in Iran and Gaza and plotting, having turned Hizbullah into an army.

The notion that an annual, civilian drill, Israel's duty, and whose theme takes into account new military developments, is a plot for war, should be scoffed at. The Times treats the plot accusation with respect. Its readers will not understand much about the issues here.


Naïve, democracy allows Islam to exploit it. Just as Islam creates fear and its people live in fear in Muslim countries, so, too, in the U.S.. America's careless immigration policy enables terrorists to draw upon a pool of violent sympathizers. American critics of jihad receive death threats. Some anti-terrorism experts, such as Steve Emerson, live practically in hiding. Some governments, such as Syria and Iran, operate secret enforcers abroad. Besides natural hesitancy in going to police, immigrant communities may be afraid of retribution from violent elements among them. The authorities move slowly if at all.

The U.S. still has not grasped the fact that radical Muslims have a fanatical, religiously motivated, collective and international terrorist movement, Kataria laments. For example, over mere cartoons published in Denmark, Muslims murder Hindus and Japanese.

"Since 9/11/2001, the followers of the so called 'religion of peace' have carried out 15,101 deadly terrorist attacks and killed more than 75,000 people. "Pakistan is the nursery of terrorism." That other U.S. "ally," Saudi Arabia, spent $100 billion in that three decades, spreading hatred.

Kataria foresees that in 30-40 years, the U.S. will find itself in the same divided and besieged position that India does. People are getting cowed. The future is in doubt. Americans need to make distinctions, so that they are not against Islam but do oppose the totalitarians who want to take over here and everywhere, in the name of religion. "Take this advice from someone who has seen it happen in South-East Asia."

Kataria urges Americans to "visualize a world of radical Muslim control. Do you want to have happen here, what occurred in Somalia, when Islamists closed radio stations?" "I believe in the survival of human civilization on planet earth and the protection of freedom and democracy. It is imperative that the major countries, like the U.S., Britain, Russia, Israel, India, Germany, and other victims of jihad formulate a concrete strategy to effectively end this serious threat to our very existence."


Sunday, the Israel Day parade overcame a forecast of rain, so that 20,000 people stayed on for a concert in Central Park. Sponsors thought it was the biggest ever. [It certainly was bigger than the ones I attended in the early years.]

The theme of the speeches at the concert was the indivisibility of Jerusalem and halting concessions to the Palestinian Authority. One speaker was MK Danny Danon, described as one Israeli politician who does not talk right but turn left. Other speakers affirmed the Jewish people's right to settle throughout Judea-Samaria.

The main speaker was Republican National Committee chair Michael Steel. He referred to American public opinion showing overwhelming American support for Israel in its struggle for survival. But he injected somewhat of a political note by criticizing President Obama for abusing PM Netanyahu and kid-gloving Iran. He said that the Palestinian Authority is not serious about peace and that Israel should keep Jerusalem united (Arutz-7, 5/24/10).


A prior article cited a source on the legality of Jewish towns in Judea-Samaria. In editorial remarks, I then explained further.

Today, a source had another statement on that. This time, the towns were deemed legal, because neither the Geneva Conventions nor the Security Council Resolution 242 called them illegal united (I thought this was from Arutz-7, 5/24/10, but the e-mail disappeared, and I can't find the article on the web site)

The statement fails the test of chronological order. First came Conventions and Resolution. Then came Jewish towns. One would not expect Conventions and Resolution to rule on the legality of towns before any were built.

Based on international law and justice, I have reached the conclusion that the towns are legal. I reject poor arguments in behalf of their legality. I prefer accuracy and precise language.


Abbas Zaki, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, reiterated Abbas' threat to resume armed struggle against Israel, if negotiations fail. The U.S. continues training Palestinian Authority (P.A.) military forces and continues ignoring military threats from P.A. ruling circles (IMRA, 5/23/10).

The reality on the ground is that the U.S. is preparing the P.A. to make war on Israel. The antisemites in the clouds accuse the U.S. of "unstinting support for Israel" and only Israel. Do you think that with the vaunted "Jewish" control of the U.S. government, Israel could get that government to stop training the P.A. for a war is it far likelier to wage against Israel than against Hamas?


Working for Hamas, eight Jerusalem Arabs, an Israeli Arab, and a Gaza Arab were arrested for helping Hamas illegally subsidize terrorist prisoners in Israel. Apparently, attorney Shirin Isawai was the ringleader and go-between.

Previously, Hamas used charitable fronts to continue paying imprisoned terrorist, until Israel and Jordan banned those fronts (Arutz-7, 5/24/10).

An American attorney was convicted also for acting as go-between for an imprisoned terrorist and his followers outside.


Palestinian Authority (P.A.) head Abbas demands that PM Netanyahu fulfill or start negotiating from the offers made by his predecessor, PM Olmert. Abbas wants U.S. support for this demand.

Israelis rejected Olmert's offers as extravagant and foolish. They elected a rival politician, Netanyahu, to withdraw those offers. Abbas knows this. He also knows that a negotiating offer is not binding unless ratified by the Cabinet and signed by both sides. There was no signing and binding. Abbas' demands are childish. The U.S. should tell Abbas to negotiate responsibly (IMRA, 5/23/10).

Those opinions came from my source. Some readers confuse my reporting sources' news with my own opinions appearing after I cite my sources.

I do not think that Abbas is being childish but a cynical and relentlessly aggressive radical Muslim. I think that the U.S. government is cynical and unscrupulous. It does what it feels it can to favor the Arab side. Hence U.S. diplomats and opinion-makers have claimed that a successor Israeli Prime Minister must be held to the terms merely suggested in negotiating discussions by his failed predecessor. The idea here is not to be mature or to make peace, but to browbeat Israel.

If Israel were intelligent about non-military aspects of total war, it would show the impropriety of Abbas' demand and U.S. complicity or silence about it. The U.S. keeps calling Israeli housing construction a deterrent to successful negotiations, but the P.A. erects a series of real deterrents without U.S. comment. That is neither constructive nor fair.


The New Israel Fund (NIF) and EU finance the Israel Democracy Institute, which scheduled a conference on bi-nationalism for Israel, in other words, whether to end Jewish sovereignty. Almost all the speakers are far leftists, who approve of turning Israel into a bi-national state.

Last year, most of those conferees were at a York University conclave, discussing alternatives to Israel's existence. The University of Haifa is having a panel of two Arabs and a leftist Jew discuss approvingly the Arab [non-]right of return, which would end Israel's existence as a Jewish state (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/23/10).

If millions of Arabs come in, millions of Jews would have to get out, if they would have anywhere to go and could live long enough to reach the ports. Bringing the Arab-Israel conflict from mostly external jihad to internal jihad, and calling that a solution, defies logic.

We have seen the recent breakup of, or genocide in, multi-national states, such as Rwanda, Sudan, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. The answer is not to make another multi-national state.


Egypt held large-scale military maneuvers in the Sinai, using planes, helicopters, paratroopers, armored units, and special forces. The scenario was crossing the Suez Canal and penetrating deep into enemy territory. Most of the weapons are U.S.-made.

The country on the other side of the Canal is Israel. Israel object to the war game, because of the peace treaty between the two countries (IMRA, 5/23/10).

Hizbullah objected to Israel's defensive — civil defense — drill. What would it think of Egypt's offensive war game?

Egypt's weapons are paid for by the U.S.. Many readers have complained about spending U.S. taxes on military aid to Israel, but have said nothing about U.S. military aid to Egypt and others, who repeatedly made war on Israel.


For about a decade, Islamists controlled the Jordanian professional associations. They just lost control of the Jordan Pharmacists Association to leftists and nationalists. They recently lost control of the Jordan Bar and Medical Associations, too (IMRA, 5/23/10).


[A high Palestinian Authority (P.A.) official said that Israel would be wise to settle with the P.A. or be overwhelmed by Arab demographics. Those demographics are a myth. Arab population figures and growth are exaggerated, as they always have been, not that they once were not considerable.

Israel's central bureau of Statistics long has over-estimated Arab fertility and under-estimated Jewish fertility, under-estimated Arab emigration and under-estimated Jewish immigration. In the 1950s, they predicted a Jewish population of 2.3 million Jews by 2000, but there were 5.8 million. They mistakenly had rejected Ben-Gurion's prediction of a million Jewish immigrants and later of another millions Soviet Jews. The current trend favors Jewish demography.

In recent years, the Arab birth rate has stabilized, whereas the Jewish birth rate rose 50%. The population of Arabs in Judea-Samaria was inflated by 66%. The P.A. counts 400,000 overseas residents and 250,000 Jerusalem residents already included in Israeli statistics.

According to the World Bank, the P.A. birth rate was inflated by 32%. There usually is a net Arab emigration from Judea-Samaria, reaching 20,000 last year.

Why the reduced Arab birth rate? Birth control program, great reduction in teenage pregnancy and later marriage, urbanization, education, careers for women, and high divorce (IMRA, 5/23/10). http://www.imra.org.il/


The BESA center for strategic studies studied what Israel should do if it suffers a nuclear attack by unknown assailants?

The attack may be by a state, such as Iran, whose dominant ideology is to bring on Armageddon — suffer now, play later. The attack may be by a terrorist organization. [They are known to be seeking weapons of mass-destruction of some sort. They also may be given such weapons.]

Israel needs a policy likeliest to deter such an attack. BESA suggests a policy of shoot first, ask questions later. Waiting and investigating would tempt others to finish Israel off.

The analyst, Chuck Freilich, suggests that Israel make this policy known unofficially, as through leaks. A direct statement of intent would arouse opposition beforehand.

Whom should Israel retaliate against, when it doesn't know who perpetrated the attack? BESA suggests the whole of Iran, al-Qaeda, and Islam's holiest sites (IMRA, 5/23/10).

The problem with attacking al-Qaeda from a distance is finding it.

The problem with vaporizing Iran is that many good people live there, themselves victims of a fanatical dictatorship.

The study probably assumes that all the countries and organizations that care about the holy sites and other intended targets would strive to keep anyone from attacking Israel. On the other hand, letting it be known that Mecca would be destroyed may make them unite against Israel.

The nuclear proliferation, that the UN seems more to preside over than to prevent, and that major powers assisted by disseminating nuclear knowledge, makes attacks, both accidental and deliberate, more likely. This spread of destructive power, combined with the increasing use of Israel as mankind's scapegoat, makes more than Iran a potential source of nuclear attack. One almost can predict a nuclear free-for-all. Is this the end of mankind?

How will readers react to this analysis? Some will share in its dismay, but probably not comment. Others will probably would criticize Israel, without a word against great powers that taught and sold the means of nuclear proliferation, against Iran's ideology of seeking the "end of days" and the return of the hidden Mahdi, and of the terrorists who murder and oppress and threaten the world.

The real issues are not only what should Israel do, but what should the world do to halt this nightmare. Can the world emerge from its fanatical, corrupt, and scapegoat mode and solve this and other problems constructively? Or will the primitive ideologies' access to modern technology destroy civilization.

One feels like a Roman hearing of the approach of Alaric.


The Palestinian Center for Human Rights defended UNRWA's help for its people and denounced those who interfere. Some group supported the attack on the grounds that UNRWA camps teach girls to swim and dance. [Not the place of females to enjoy life?] The Center "Emphasizes the importance of the rule of law and completely rejects

the notion that any party can claim to be the guardian of morals and values of this people, and carries out whatever attacks it deems appropriate, as such actions constitute the epitome of security chaos and misuse of weapons." (IMRA, 5/23/10).

The Center refers to Gaza as "occupied," but Israel has nothing to do with these problems and the Center's complaint is against the Arab rulers there and freelance terrorists.

The rule of law is indeed important, but the whole Palestinian Authority lacks it. One of yesterday's articles mentioned a UN assessment that one cannot get a fair trial in Gaza. Arafat used to have 2-minute trials, before an almost automatic finding of guilty. The Communists and Nazis used to have show trials, when they had trials.


The Foreign Ministry of Israel criticized the blockade-running flotilla for engaging in politics behind the guise of humanitarianism.

Since January 2009, Israel has let through about 15,000 tons a week of humanitarian goods. That amounts to a million tons. That is almost a ton per person. The people there suffer no shortage of food, medicine, and clothing. International aid organizations and private groups in Gaza see to that.


Some EU diplomats are reconsidering their subsidy of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). The aid was given, they say, in preparation for statehood, which they see as the outcome of negotiations. If the negotiations do not make much progress, then what use is the aid? They may end it (IMRA, 5/24/10),

They ask what use is their aid. I often have reported to what use their aid is put. A major result is defamation of Israel, in accordance with an anti-Israel political agenda that seeks its destruction. Another use to which their aid is put is to free funds for war. The regime they aid represses its own people, too. And they criticize the U.S. for subsidizing dictatorships?

Let's ask what the purpose of negotiations is. Statehood? What is the use of that, if peace is not made, even if it is proclaimed for photo-ops? The purpose should be peace. But peace isn't created by negotiations, it is ratified and concluded by negotiations. There is no peace there to negotiate. The P.A. keeps inciting to terrorist violence and urging war. How could the EU imagine there can be peace while the P.A. indoctrinates its people in hatred of Jews and in feeling justified in killing them and taking their land? Sovereignty would better enable those terrorists to make war.


President Obama met with Lebanon's PM Hariri. This is the press release.

Obama commends Hariri for carrying on his father's legacy [for independence from Syria], and supports the Special Tribunal for Lebanon [investigating the murder of the father probably at Syrian orders].

They both want to enforce the UN resolutions instead of allowing arms smuggling violations.

Obama stressed getting Iran into compliance on nuclear proliferation.

The U.S. wants to strengthen Lebanese institutions such as the Lebanese Armed Forces (IMRA, 5/25/10).

PM Hariri has abandoned his father's legacy. Hizbullah is too strong, Israel failed to smash it, the U.S. did not follow through, and Obama is appeasing radical Islam. As a result, Lebanon brought Hamas into the government and Syria has resumed treating it as a province of Syria.

Lebanon did not enforce the UN resolution against arms smuggling to Hizbullah. In fact, the Lebanese Armed Forces impeded any enforcement by UNIFIL. Not that UNIFIL was conscientious. It closed its eyes to the arms smuggling, and reports that it hasn't seen any.


President Obama's counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan said that Hizbullah is not a purely terrorist organization. Hizbullah official Mahmoud Qamati hailed the statement.

Hizbullah also took comfort from something Obama told a visiting Lebanese official that he is tired of hearing about Hizbullah weapons smuggling. "Enough of this!" topic, said the U.S. President (IMRA, 5/25/10).

Although beset by the third great totalitarian menace within a hundred years, the earlier ones being Nazism and Bolshevism, the U.S. is as slow to catch on to the new menace, radical Islam, as it was to the older ones that nearly engulfed it. In a futile way, the U.S. tried to use Nazis against the Soviets, and radical Muslims against the Soviets, and now, as does Britain, radical Muslims against radical Muslims. Britain and the U.S. consult radical Muslims on how to deal with radical Muslims. What kind of advice would you expect them to get?

How does that line go about "giving aid and comfort to the enemy?"

(For more on Obama adviser Brennan, goto:
http://www. http.com//www.examiner.com/ examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2010m5d22-Introducing-Obamas-counterterrorism-adviser For more on Obama and Lebanon, go to:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~y2010m5d25-President- Obama-meeets-with-Lebanon-PM-Hariri)

ISRAEL ON CIVIL DEFENSE: UPDATE Israel still is engaged in a massive civil defense exercise combining the efforts of government offices, local authorities, and civilian organizations. Observers from 30 countries are attending, to learn what they can. Israel is glad to share its experience with them, and anticipates future cooperation. Among the countries represented are: Japan, China, Brazil, Ecuador, India, Colombia, Mexico, the USA, and European countries (IMRA, 5/25/10). Will those countries echo complaints by Syria and Hizbullah that these civil defense efforts are a cover for war and a provocation? Hardly.


Already in this year, terrorists in Gaza have fired 140 rockets and mortars into Israel. Hamas keeps trying to build up its arsenal. It tries by smuggling tunnels or using fishing boats to bring in missiles, launchers, guns, explosives and materials for building them.

Due to that war effort by Hamas, the IDF has to raid Gaza and restrict land and sea crossings into the Strip, for the protection of Israeli citizens. Nevertheless, Israel does allow frequent and routine transfer of goods and equipment and also "of people for medical, religious, welfare, business or diplomatic reasons."

The news item provides the facts that refute "the claim of a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip." Much tonnage and many kinds of food and other materials are described in great detail (IMRA, 5/25/10).


Terrorists in Gaza concealed an explosive in a donkey-cart, moving toward the Israeli security fence. Since the bomb went off prematurely, no Israelis were hurt. No word on the donkey.

Last year, some terrorists, themselves wearing explosive vests, fitted explosive devices to five horses, put the horses in trucks, and drove them toward the security fence near a crossing into Israel. No word on the outcome, also not successful (IMRA, 5/25/10).

Do people stop to realize how fiendish Islamist terrorists are?


Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem denied that his country had transferred Scud missiles to Israel:

1. "The Assad regime will not act as a policeman for Israel."

2. "Did Israel ever stop arming itself, did it stop instigating violence or making military maneuvers, why are arms forbidden to Arabs and allowed to Israel?"

3. "A Scud missile is as big as this room. How could it be hidden and smuggled with Israeli planes and satellites all over the region?," he asked German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle (IMRA, 5/24/10).

Syria has armed Hizbullah so heavily, that it almost is immaterial whether its shipments include Scuds. Scuds, however, could change the strategic balance, especially if Syria inserts into them some of its chemical weapons. That might require Israeli action. The UN should have been acting against illegal Hizbullah rearming, but feigns ignorance of it.

"Policeman for Israel?" Nobody asks Syria to do anything untoward. Syria is expected to obey the Security Council resolution against rearming Hizbullah, at least south of the Litani River. A binding UN resolution, you know, like the unnamed ones the Arabs always pretend they are indignant at Israel for allegedly violating.

Whether Israel stops arming or not is irrelevant. Hizbullah the terrorist organization was the aggressor; Israel fought back; therefore the UN got a ceasefire by banning Hizbullah rearmament and positioning south of the Litani River.

What violence does Israel instigate?

Israeli military maneuvers on its own territory, short of mobilizing huge forces at the border, are immaterial. The question here is illegal armament of Hizbullah. The UN, if it earned its expensive keep, would impose sanctions on Syria for violating the Resolution.

Yes, Scuds are big. Perhaps that is the basis for Israel's claim to have detected them. On the other hand, Syria was reported to be training Hizbullah just inside the Syrian border, how to operate Scuds. That technically does not violate the Resolution, but the intent is to bring the Scuds a short distance into Lebanon when war is renewed.


This report comes from the Abu Dhabi National via Egypt Daily News. The annual U.S. military subsidy of Egypt is $1.3 billion. Total U.S. subsidy to Egypt, so far, amounts to $50 billion.

The U.S. Congress is debating whether to give Egypt $4 billion more in economic aid in the next decade.

Proponents of the gift contend that Egypt needs recompense for its "historic alliance with the U.S.."

Opponents contend that the Egyptian dictatorship would interpret a boost in its subsidy as an endorsement or tolerance of its repression. If so, it would be less likely to reform (IMRA, 5/24/10).

"Historical alliance?" That's a good one. Ally needs recompense? That's another good one. $50 billion and the Sinai are not sufficient? What recompense did the U.S. get? For the $50 billion, Egypt has an army that does the U.S. and Egyptian people no good, and that may fall into terrorist hands. Do U.S. officials never evaluate foreign aid?

Do no members of Congress contend that the U.S. is running on check overdraft, and cannot afford most foreign aid?

Our legislators and executives neither figure out what may go wrong with their proposals nor what has gone wrong with their implementation. They have neither foresight nor hindsight. They just have scapegoats. The popular scapegoats now are hedge funds, short-sellers, banks, and President Bush. It's easier than determining the many causes of recession over many years, and their own responsibility.

P.S.: readers mention all sorts of figures for U.S. subsidy of Israel. A recent claim was $8 billion. The actual figure is about $3 billion, somewhat less than the total of U.S. aid to several Arab governments. Israel pays a considerable sum to the U.S., because earlier aid was in the form of loans when interest was at its peak. Egypt also had loans. The U.S. canceled Egypt's debt but not Israel's.

I refer readers who oppose U.S. aid to Israel to my various articles also opposing it as poor policy all around. But the rationale for it had a certain sense, in that the U.S. then sold arms (not just gave them) to Israel's enemies, who repeatedly committed aggression against 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 and visit his website:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner/x-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, May 24, 2010.

This was written Charles Krauthammer and it appeared May 23, 2010 in The Washington Post.

Last week's uranium deal maneuver between Iran, Brazil and Turkey demonstrates how traditional US allies have decided that there's no profit in lining up with a president given to apologies and appeasement.


It is perfectly obvious that Iran's latest uranium maneuver, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. And it continues enriching at an accelerated pace and to a greater purity (20 percent). Which is why the French Foreign Ministry immediately declared that the trumpeted temporary shipping of some Iranian uranium to Turkey will do nothing to halt Iran's nuclear program.

It will, however, make meaningful sanctions more difficult. America's proposed Security Council resolution is already laughably weak — no blacklisting of Iran's central bank, no sanctions against Iran's oil and gas industry, no nonconsensual inspections on the high seas. Yet Turkey and Brazil — both current members of the Security Council — are so opposed to sanctions that they will not even discuss the resolution. And China will now have a new excuse to weaken it further.

But the deeper meaning of the uranium-export stunt is the brazenness with which Brazil and Turkey gave cover to the mullahs' nuclear ambitions and deliberately undermined US efforts to curb Iran's program.

The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.

THAT PICTURE — a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam — is a crushing verdict on President Barack Obama's foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there's no cost in lining up with America's enemies and no profit in lining up with a US president given to apologies and appeasement.

They've watched Obama's humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed US negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant US strategic advance in the region in 30 years.

They've watched America acquiesce to Russia's re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured by Russia last month into extending for 25 years its lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol) and over Georgia (Russia's de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama "reset" policy).

They've watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab Levant — sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hizbullah with Scuds and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hizbullah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the US and its interests? Ever more eager US "engagement."

They've observed the administration's gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see not just US passivity as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez organizes his anti-American "Bolivarian" coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active US support in Honduras for a pro-Chavez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat — accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.

Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It's the perfect fulfillment of Obama's adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect and domination from which he has come to redeem us and the world. Hence his foundational declaration at the UN General Assembly last September that "no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation" (guess who's been the dominant nation for the last two decades?) and his dismissal of any "world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another." (NATO? The West?)

Given Obama's policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the US retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There's nothing to fear from Obama, and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America's rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one's friends and punishing one's enemies.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Betty Misheiker, May 24, 2010.

WE are indeed a race unique
possessing that infernal CHEEK
Come Pogroms, Inquisition, Holocaust,
Darkest Night,
Accusations, Lies and Insults —
— quite alright-
Absorbing all the vicious shocks
Bombs, Katushas, Daggers, Rocks,
all the world shows its concern in
Waiting for that cheek to turn

To please the world — our friends abroad,
Whose wishes cannot be ignored —
While dodging rockets,and note their track
Expect that we do not react
Are shocked in fact,
At the restraint we lack!

How come an unconcerned World
and wife
Aware of the TEN good Rules
which guide our life
Suddenly presume to tell what's wrong,
what's right,
— and have a hand in carving up
The only known
G-d-given Land.?

Forgive, Forget, Shake hands — be nice,
And be prepared to sacrifice!
Fallen soldiers cannot speak
Or weep a tear
. Forever silenced — cannot ask
"Why am I here? Was it in vain?"
"Did no one learn?
For it seems plain that mild and meek
We are prepared to turn —
and turn
Yet, once again
The other cheek.

Contact Betty Misheiker by email at largo@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 24, 2010.


Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemenite Muslim born in the U.S. urges U.S. Muslim troops to murder fellow soldiers. He says this is to protect Muslims abroad.

Awlaki boasts that Major Hassan, who did just that, by firing on unarmed troops who were more or less taking therapy from him, was heroic (Arutz-7, 5/23/10).

Antisemites have raised questions of dual loyalty, the very question that caused the formerly Jewish owners of the New York Times to turn anti-Zionist and eventually convert to Christianity. It was a false issue. There is no conflict between the interests of the U.S. and of Israel, though some U.S. officials are anti-Israel against U.S. interests. Some of my articles have explained that. Jews, like other minorities, have been loyal and are glad to demonstrate it.

Every ethnic group has some bad characters, out of character of their group. Usually, each group tries to assimilate. Eventually, it gets accepted. It may be different, now. For one thing, there is less of a process of Americanization, as the Left turns anti-American. More important, radical Muslims enter Western countries prejudiced. More and more of them sabotage their own host countries. Compounding the problem is the ease with which ordinary Muslims become radicalized. Another problem is that we have let radical imams convert felons, already prone to anti-social violence. Ironically, the very ways of life and code that force many Muslims to flee from their native cultures, may be brought in with them, reproducing anti-American sentiment and even action.

How shall we distinguish between decent Muslims and ex-Muslims, such Ayaan Hirsi Ali (whom I recently extolled for her contributions in this area) and radical ones before they murder people over religion and to the detriment of our national security? We have to reform and strengthen our own society, that the Left is undermining, and not just complain about Awlaki and Hassan.


Pakistan has gotten U.S. technology and about $15 billion in subsidy, to fight terrorism. It only pretended to oppose terrorism [at least until recently, when it started, though very slowly, to fight back when terrorists turned on it]. Pretense is a frequent tactic within the code of jihad. Pakistan is major font of terrorism and Jihad.

The combination of Saudi Arabian funds and Pakistani might is as great a danger to the world as is Iran, Narain Kataria warns. Pakistani troops are stationed in Saudi Arabia to guard its oil. That gives Pakistan leverage over Saudi Arabia. Pakistan controls many Saudi businesses, Kataria charges.

Saudi Arabia probably financed Pakistan's nuclear development. The Saudis certainly finance the radical madrassas and mosques there and in many other countries that radicalize Muslims into jihadists against civilization. Every year 500,000 Taliban graduate from 11,000 madrassas in Pakistan. At least 10,000 graduates a year go all over the world to kill innocent people in the name of Allah, says Kataria.

(While the U.S. tries to apprehend dozens of terrorists by law and order tactics, Saudi-subsidized Pakistan indoctrinates thousands.)

Pakistani intelligence has directed jihad against India, primarily via Kashmir. The same groups encouraged the Taliban in Afghanistan against Pakistan's supposed ally, the U.S.. The U.S. did not catch on particularly, just pressed Pakistan for years to crack down on terrorism and close its border. Nevertheless, Pakistan keeps the bulk of its armed forces facing India, which has not attacked it except to prevent genocide.

The U.S. alliance with Pakistan does not work.


Gaza women at women's sports event (AP/Hatem Moussa)

Here is a reader's comment: Entry: Violence against Arab women in Gaza increases?


My heart goes out to that Arab Muslim woman. Some time ago, I wrote about the Muslim cleric in France who wrote a book about how to beat one's wife and how to do it without non-Muslims authorities finding a mark. I also reported cases of Arabs beating servants not only in Saudi Arabia but also in the United States. This is a scandal little remarked upon. Why do you suppose that is?

Innocent women should not suffer pain because of husbands' neurosis. Too bad those men do not realize the great joy of having wives in mutual, wholesome love and companionship!

There may be another factor. Obesity and diabetes are raging, as I reported, in at least some Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. An early stage of diabetes is hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar. One symptom of hypoglycemia is loss of temper.

The abuse of Arab women and children produces sadism, hence torture of prisoners, too, riots, and probably wars.

I challenge readers to rise to this occasion, and oppose Arab wife-beating, whether because of religion or bad temper, illness or immaturity. Arab women need your help, international investigation, and support.

Wife-beating used to be more common in Western society. Maybe it will abate in Arab society, but that society remains traditional.


Many people have difficulty with chronological logic. They do not understand that: (1) First came Arab wars on Israel and formation of Fatah and the PLO to destroy Israel; (2) Then as a result of the third war, Israel acquired the Territories. Nevertheless, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) claims it wars on Israel to get the Territories. Why the wars from 1947 to 1967, before Israel did not have the Territories? Now that chronological logic really wasn't difficult, was it?

In behalf of its land claim, the P.A. emphasizes a legal claim that the Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria are illegal. The BBC and UN Secretary-General go along with that [perhaps because they would accept any argument against Israel]. They repeat the statement, that the "settlements" are illegal, without much explanation.

Here is a statement of part of the case for legality.

"In fact, however, the settlements are not illegal and do not violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, despite what the Arabs have charged of late. Adopted in 1949 in response to Nazi atrocities, the Convention governs the treatment of civilians during wartime, outlawing torture, collective punishment and the forced transfer of civilians to territory under its military control — but does not apply to territory gained as a result of a defensive war, as when Israel liberated Judea and Samaria in the Six-Day War of 1967. Neither do the Oslo Accords nor UN resolutions 242 and 338 outlaw the Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria." (Arutz-7, 5/23/10).

Nor did Israel transfer civilians to the Territories forcibly. It was not punishment.

If the Security Council thought that those towns were illegal, its resolution would have said Israel must withdraw totally. It did not. Recent sentiment to the contrary therefore is not based on law but on ideology. This ideology then distorts law in order to rationalize its position. People thus ignore what the law means and was meant to mean, and rationalize its literal wording, or take paragraphs out of context, to mean something in accord with their ideology. Not honest.

Same is true of U.S. regimes. Previous Presidents called the Jewish communities legal. The incumbent does not. His radical ideology colors his policy.

I've explained before, so will just restate a summary of it, that the Territories cannot be considered someone else's occupied land, because they did not belong to someone else. There was no sovereign power with title to the area. The area got its legal status from the Mandate. Who is the intended heir of the Mandate? The Jewish people. Read its emphasis on Jewish political rights and, in fact, Jewish settlement. Nothing has changed the legal status of the Territories from the Mandate's mandate for "close settlement of the Jews on the land."

International law gives the Jewish people a second option for annexing the Territories. It authorizes countries that were the victims of aggression, as was Israel, to retain land it seized in self-defense, if needed for security from further attack. Since the Arabs attacked repeatedly, and since there ideology calls for further jihad, Israel is well within its rights to have annexed the Golan and land around Jerusalem. It would be entitled to annex more.

Against that understanding, the same anti-Zionist ideology takes a misleading position. It states as a principle that countries should not profit from war by acquiring land from enemies. That is misleading and can be a foolish principle, if unqualified. The qualification is, a country should not profit by acquiring land by aggression. If it acquires land by self-defense, as did Israel, it punishes aggression and, more important, discourages both by that penalty becoming a deterrent to repeated aggression and by strengthening the borders of the victim of aggression. That is justice.

Applying the misleading anti-Zionist interpretation would indemnify the aggressor against loss of territory and encourage further aggression, since there would be no territorial penalty and the victim's borders, if weak before, remain so.

The U.S. peace process would leave Israel with weak borders, hence encourage aggression by enemies still bedeviled with a thirst for conquest and religious domination.


Hizbullah accused Israel of holding its civil defense drill to camouflage war plans. It also called it an obstacle to peace negotiations. How can Israel be negotiating peace while holding military maneuvers? (Arutz-7, 5/22/10.)

Civil defense is not military maneuvers. Should a country not have civil defense?

What evidence has Hizbullah that Israel is planning war? Many times the Arabs have accused Israel of planning war, but there was no war. Israel absorbed rocket attacks for years, before massive retaliation. The accusations are false. Perhaps if the rest of the world wanted peace, it would tell the Arabs to cease their false accusations and give peace a chance.

Hizbullah's logic has a double standard. The Arabs are arming and holding military maneuvers. Hizbullah does not question their dedication to peace.


I had reported Yitzchak Hershkowitz' years of struggle, against deceitful Arab squatters, lax courts, and lazy police, to gain access to his property in Jerusalem. Finally, the squatters were removed. However, they threaten his access and life.

In comes the Jewish Canine Legion. Members have guard dogs to protect Jews' property. The Legion claims to have thwarted eight intrusions in Elazar, ten minutes away. They may set up a training base on Mr. Hershkowitz's property (Arutz-7, 5/22/10.)

I reported on this case some time ago. The government let the case drag on, with a series of contradictory Arab appeals, for so many appeals, the authorities and the squatters must have been counting on the owner to give up. The owner may have been wondering whether he would live long enough to get his property back. He did.

Israel should penalize subversive officials and immediately reject frivolous suits.


The IDF gives demobilized soldiers job training for their return to civilian life. It had not included training in manual trades for years. Now it resumed training bricklaying, carpentry, tiling, plumbing, etc..

The resumption of manual training seems intended to fill the gap in the building trades that the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) is trying to leave by getting its men to boycott settlements, where they do much of the construction work (Arutz-7, 5/22/10.)


The Philoctetes Center in New York runs programs of public import in the fields of psychology. On some Saturdays, they hold high-level panel discussions, free. Last Saturday's panel considered jihad and social cohesion over the centuries.

Europeans in the Middle Ages enjoyed social cohesion. Their states compromised basically homogeneous people in practically hereditary classes in which each person's place was set.

The modern market economy created wealth by productivity rather than by stealing other people's property. Until WWI, people, even in impoverished areas, felt optimistic that prosperity and peace were growing, and the future, promising. Modern economies, however, disrupted many older societies. So how is social cohesion maintained? Not by the UN. The UN has failed to hold countries together.

Countries are groups, and group life is characterized by violence. Countries with conflicting ethnic or religious populations splinter. What determines whether the separation is violent, as with Yugoslavia, or peaceable, as with Czechoslovakia? For one thing, Yugoslavia was a confluence of three religious cultures.

Countries need to put their own "houses" in order. The New Deal did that in the U.S., enabling it to take a leadership role when it entered WWII.

At about that time, al-Bana founded Islamism, which is different from Islam. Islamism is a modern doctrine, more of a political movement, inspired by European totalitarianism. Although Sunni and Shia extremists have their differences and their rivalries, they were inspired by the same sources.

A few decades after al-Bana, Said Kutb, founder of the Moslem Brotherhood, revised his theory. Kutb was writing radically before his trip to the U.S. The basis of his and similar ideologies is a meta-myth about "the people of God" facing annihilation by foreign forces and internal subversives. The subversives try to undermine their morality. For their defense, they need a sacred war. First they would suffer from the war, then they would triumph and inaugurate the rule of God for a thousand years.

That was similar to: (1) The Gospel of John with Armageddon and ending evil; (2) Bolsheviks, with the proletariat versus internal bourgeoisie and external capitalists and imperialists, ending history; (3) Nazi Aryanism, beset by Jews internally and imperialists externally but to lead to the return of the Roman empire and a 1,000 year Reich ; (4) Muslim "community" under assault from within by Muslims and Jews and from without by imperialists. The Islamists plan to reconstitute the Muslim empire via jihad; (5) Some in the West thought themselves the chosen country.

Which is cause and which is effect, ideology or conditions? The modern totalitarian or violent ideologies may have an origin in 19th century poetry. The poems were vague, but headed in the modern direction. Then the ideas turned political. After WWI deflated optimism in the steadiness of human progress, more evil ideologies emerged.

How can we prevent forces of violence? Expose extremist doctrines as not reality but ideology based on old clichés. Then people can change their views. For example, Germans abandoned Nazism. Millions of Communists admitted having made a mistake. [Muslims are finding Islamism intolerable to them.]

People's notions are psychological, cultural, or ideological. Cultural ones, running for thousands of years, are the most resistant to change. Many people are not educated about totalitarian movements and their meaning. For example, Israelis are anxious about Iran, but very few of their professors study Iran. [The West as a whole does not study totalitarian enemies.]

The moderator asserted that religion is the basis of much xenophobia, nowadays. That seems inconsistent with his claim that there is a rising Islamophobia and a violent rise, at that. The jihadist drive to conquer the world produces a Western reaction, some war but more appeasement. I find the emphasis is on appeasement and on some self-defense but with society attempting to differentiate Islam from radical Islam. That is neither xenophobia nor any phobia.]

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, May 24, 2010.

Dear friends,

Here is an excellent article you should all read. It will prepare you to answer those of your friends who repeat the preposterous claim that Israel is to blame for

America's problems in the Muslim world.

Your Truth Provider,

This article
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/ dumping_israel_tjrUPu0wk5H3KWx23YiXDM


'It's those damned Jews." That's the muffled message I hear when, pretending to represent our national interest, voices call for the abandonment of Israel.

We've heard it from agenda-driven scholars who write that our alliance with Israel is responsible for our problems in the Middle East. More worrisome still, I've begun to hear it from a minority of military officers, as well as from Washington types.

This latest, and sadly lasting, bout of moral cancer can be dated back to 2006 and the publication of an article that had sought a home for years, The Israeli Lobby And US Foreign Policy, by professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

The book's assault on Israel was welcomed by figures including President Jimmy Carter's national-security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski — a hoary Israel detractor. With their Ivy League credentials, Mearsheimer and Walt made anti-Israeli diatribes (semi-)respectable. Their effect has been lasting.

OK, let's get one thing straight: There is no evidence that if Israel disappeared tomorrow, the Middle East would suddenly blossom into a pro-American model of justice, hard work and progress.

Nor is there any evidence that anti-American terrorism would slacken. In al Qaeda's list of complaints, Israel barely makes the top dozen. A US turn away from Israel would only encourage and empower terrorists, convincing them of our cowardice and folly.

The grotesquely failed societies of the Middle East desperately need Israel and the US to blame for their self-wrought problems. Neither Washington nor Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are responsible for the Arab world's pervasive corruption, stagnation, oppression of women and lack of creativity or a work ethic.

Neither the US nor Israel is to blame for the unprecedented squandering of wealth by Arab oil powers, for their failure to invest in human capital or productive infrastructure, for the absence of democracy and respect for human rights, or for the region's mockery of the rule of law.

Given the vast homemade tragedy of the greater Middle East, it's inevitable that Israel's hated for its shining success amid the local squalor. Likewise, the US is hated for our might — and the seductiveness of our civilization.

But if that explains why Arabs, Persians and others would relish, but not reward, our abandonment of Israel, it doesn't explain the American voices repeating Arab propaganda about devious Jews controlling our foreign policy.

I divide the dump-Israel movement's leaders and fellow travelers into four groups:

Old-fashioned anti-Semites: It's no longer socially acceptable to accuse Jews of sacrificing Christian infants. But it's quite fashionable to blame Israelis for the suffering of Palestinian children. One doesn't mention "Jews." But calumnies against "Israelis" are the new, politically correct blood libel.

Academics: It's more than simply the juvenile leftism that diseases liberal-arts faculties. This is also a financial transaction. Massive Arab gifts and endowments have turned many of our "leading" universities into intellectual brothels.

President Obama's left-wing base: From the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's congregation to the administration's "social activists," this bunch long has accepted as gospel the notion that Palestinian terrorists are "freedom fighters" while Israelis are "fascists." Don't try to reason with them — this really is their "gospel."

Military officers: I take this one personally. While only a sliver of the officer corps mumbles about Israel's purported negative effect on our regional policy, this is nonetheless an alarming development. I read this uniformed lunacy as a schizophrenic reaction to a decade's involvement in Iraq.

On one hand, extended first-hand experience of Arab culture has not filled our troops with respect for the same (any officer who had fairy-tale, Lawrence-of-Arabia notions about the region has had them extinguished, to put it mildly). Yet the daily drone of Arab complaints about Israel — blamed for every Arab misfortune back to the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols — has had a cumulative effect. Criticism takes the form of "A plague on both their houses."

I ask the gripers categorized above for any evidence that our betrayal of Israel would have the slightest positive effect. The Saudis wouldn't even drop the price of oil for 24 hours.

Go back to the bordello side of all this: Wealthy Arabs have bought a great deal of influence in Washington, lavishing money on think tanks, contracts on US firms and expensive gifts on individuals. (A few years back, one American "authority" on the Middle East delightedly told me that he'd been given five Rolexes.)

In contrast to these ingratiating, deep-pocketed Arabs, Israelis are brusque and dismissive, relying on American Jews to smooth things over. Well, sorry, Israel needs to rediscover public relations. With the global media rabidly pro-Palestinian, Israel had better get back in the information fight.

The recent attacks on Israel that masquerade as sober analysis boil down to the age-old anti-Semitic query: "Wouldn't we better off without those Jews?"

My answer, as an American, is "No."

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, May 24, 2010.

A gang of American 'diplomats' reportedly attack young Israeli man, are freed from custody due to 'diplomatic immunity'
www.israelto day.co.il/ default.aspx? tabid=178& nid=21142


A young Israeli man who was brutally beaten in downtown Jerusalem earlier this month revealed to The Jerusalem Post that his assailants were apparently employees of the US Consulate in the Israeli capital.

The young man, who identified himself only by his first name, Yishai, said the attack occurred as he and a friend stepped out of a downtown bar where they were celebrating another friend's birthday to buy some cigarettes.

As they were returning to the party, the two Israelis were approached by a group of people speaking English. One of the larger of the English-speakers exchanged words with Yishai and then punched him in the face. The others proceeded to punch and kick Yishai, leaving him with multiple head and body injuries that required him being taken to a nearby hospital.

Yishai's friend, who was also lightly injured, rushed back to the bar to let the rest of his friends know what happened to and to call the police. The group searched for the attackers and found them at another bar, to which they directed police. The assailants were arrested and taken to a downtown jail, but were shortly after released.

When Yishai's friends demanded to know why those who had perpetrated an unprovoked and brutal attack were simply allowed to walk free, one officer revealed that the attackers were employees of the US Consulate, and so enjoy diplomatic immunity.

Police officials later contacted by the Post refused to confirm or deny that the assailants were US diplomats. US Consulate staff insisted that they were cooperating fully with the Israeli police in the investigation.

The US Consulate in Jerusalem has many Palestinian Arabs who possess US citizenship on its staff. They, together with other American employees of the mission, have on numerous occasions confronted both Israeli civilians and security personnel in a very hostile manner. One of the more recent incidents involved a consulate driver refusing to allow Israeli guards at a border crossing check his vehicle. He reportedly attempted to drive the car into one of the guards as the situation escalated.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Alpern, May 24, 2010.

"My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, U.S.A."

In this moving essay, Mark Steyn captures the puerile insipidness of President Obama. Read and grieve for America.

Mark Steyn , a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone

This article is archived at
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q= Y2ZhOWIwNDM2MjJkYzM4ZTVlYWQ3NDU4YzViNzZjZTI=


The president has become the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl's box into a round hole.

Barack Obama's remarkable powers of oratory are well known: In support of Chicago's Olympic bid, he flew into Copenhagen to give a heartwarming speech about himself, and they gave the games to Rio. He flew into Boston to support Martha Coakley's bid for the U.S. Senate, and Massachusetts voters gave Ted Kennedy's seat to a Republican. In the first year of his presidency, he gave a gazillion speeches on health care "reform" and drove support for his proposals to basement level, leaving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to ram it down the throats of the American people through sheer parliamentary muscle.

Like a lot of guys who've been told they're brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy, and doesn't always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl, upon signing the "Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act."

Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That's how I'd put it.

This is what the president of the United States said: "Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world's imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is."

Now Obama's off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he's talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased's family is standing all around him. And, even for a busy president, it's the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving and true. Indeed, for Obama, it's the work of seconds, because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.

Instead, he delivered the one above. Which, in its clumsiness and insipidness, is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: "The loss of Daniel Pearl." He wasn't "lost." He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his "loss" merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none.

Even if Americans don't get the message, the rest of the world does. This week's pictures of the leaders of Brazil and Turkey clasping hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also monuments to American passivity.

But what did the "loss" of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the president, it was "one of those moments that captured the world's imagination." Really? Evidently it never captured Obama's imagination, because, if it had, he could never have uttered anything so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl's fate, and so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides of therapeutic sedation: "one of those moments" — you know, like Princess Di's wedding, Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, whatever — "that captured the world's imagination."

Notice how reflexively Obama lapses into sentimental one-worldism: Despite our many zip codes, we are one people, with a single imagination. In fact, the murder of Daniel Pearl teaches just the opposite — that we are many worlds, and worlds within worlds. Some of them don't even need an "imagination." Across the planet, the video of an American getting his head sawed off did brisk business in the bazaars and madrassas and Internet downloads. Excited young men e-mailed it to friends, from cell phone to cell phone, from Karachi to Jakarta to Khartoum to London to Toronto to Falls Church, Va. In the old days, you needed an "imagination" to conjure the juicy bits of a distant victory over the Great Satan. But in an age of high-tech barbarism, the sight of Pearl's severed head is a mere click away.

And the rest of "the world"? Most gave a shrug of indifference. And far too many found the reality of Pearl's death too uncomfortable and chose to take refuge in the same kind of delusional pap as Obama. The president is only the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl's box into a round hole. Before him, it was Michael Winterbottom in his film A Mighty Heart: As Pearl's longtime colleague Asra Nomani wrote, "Danny himself had been cut from his own story." Or, as Paramount's promotional department put it, "Nominate the most inspiring ordinary hero. Win a trip to the Bahamas!" Where you're highly unlikely to be kidnapped and beheaded! (Although, in the event that you are, please check the liability-waiver box at the foot of the entry form.)

The latest appropriation is that his "loss" "reminded us of how valuable a free press is." It was nothing to do with "freedom of the press." By the standards of the Muslim world, Pakistan has a free-ish and very lively press. The problem is that some 80 percent of its people wish to live under the most extreme form of Sharia, and many of its youth are exported around the world in advance of that aim. The man convicted of Pearl's murder was Omar Sheikh, a British subject, a London School of Economics student, and, like many jihadists from Osama to the Pantybomber, a monument to the peculiar burdens of a non-deprived childhood in the Muslim world. The man who actually did the deed was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed in March 2007: "I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi." But Obama's not the kind to take "guilty" for an answer, so he's arranging a hugely expensive trial for KSM amid the bright lights of Broadway.

Listen to his killer's words: "The American Jew Daniel Pearl." We hit the jackpot! And then we cut his head off. Before the body was found, The Independent's Robert Fisk offered a familiar argument to Pearl's kidnappers: Killing him would be "a major blunder . . . the best way of ensuring that the suffering" — of Kashmiris, Afghans, Palestinians — "goes unrecorded." Other journalists peddled a similar line: If you release Danny, he'll be able to tell your story, get your message out, "bridge the misconceptions." But the story did get out; the severed head is the message; the only misconception is that that's a misconception.

Daniel Pearl was the prototype for a new kind of terror. In his wake came other victims from Kenneth Bigley, whose last words were that "Tony Blair has not done enough for me," to Fabrizzio Quattrocchi, who yanked off his hood, yelled "I will show you how an Italian dies!" and ruined the movie for his jihadist videographers. By that time, both men understood what it meant to be in a windowless room with a camera and a man holding a scimitar. But Daniel Pearl was the first, and in his calm, coherent final words understood why he was there:

"My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, U.S.A."

He didn't have a prompter. But he spoke the truth. That's all President Obama owed him — to do the same.

I mentioned last week the attorney general's peculiar insistence that "radical Islam" was nothing to do with the Times Square bomber, the Pantybomber, the Fort Hood killer. Just a lot of moments "capturing the world's imagination." For now, the jihadists seem to have ceased cutting our heads off. Listening to Obama and Eric Holder, perhaps they've figured out there's nothing much up there anyway.

Contact Dave Alpern at daveyboy@bezeqint.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, May 23, 2010.

For Israel to survive she needs to change direction.

First, she needs to admit that peace will not emerge from the current mistaken path of the last two decades. Further concessions only perpetuate the delusion on the Israeli side that peace is attainable and continue to weaken Israel's already inferior position vis-à-vis the Palestinians.

Second, she needs to start responding to the blood libels against her, observe, deduct trends and act before the 12th hour. Refusing to act until it is almost too late to react only worsens Israel's position, and then we are asked with wonder: "How did Judge Goldstone reach his conclusions?" or soon "How did the Palestinians unilaterally declare a state and won overwhelming international support?!?"

Third, Israel needs to face the fact that there is a new type of warfare against her. Decades ago it was ground offensive with tanks and artillery. Then it became a war of missiles against the civilian population, which necessitated the creation of a Home Front Command in the IDF. Sophistication ensued and missiles were augmented with various warheads and replaced with acts of terror such as homicide bombings.

To these two fronts (the physical, outward boundaries and the physical, inside backbone of society) a third was added: the Public Relations front. Israel is yet to respond, thus she fails. To these three fronts, a new one will be added soon, using technology, such as computer accessibility or electric magnetic pulse to bring society to a standstill. Nations recognize the threat, yet are not advanced enough to provide a sufficient response.

Fourth, Israel must strengthen herself, fight corruption at the highest levels, the violence against the elderly and overall crime that have escalated to heights previously unknown, eradicate hunger and focus on education (which has been deteriorating at the K-12 levels) and on instilling values (other than watching Big Brother or Israeli Idol) in future generations.

Fifth, her people must unite and recognize their own rights: the right to their land, right to live in peace within secure borders, right to be an equal member among nation states with equal justice prevailing and applied to all. This very element cannot be achieved when some of Israel's harshest critics are Israelis and Jews, when there is no respect or loyalty even within one's own political party or religion, and when "unity" is easily expressed yet rarely practiced.

Sixth, until a visionary emerges, to lead Israel toward acting once again rather than lagging behind and hardly reacting, Israel must react forcefully. When the Palestinians boycott Israeli goods and services and the Palestinian leadership burns Israeli products for the world to see, there must be a severe and immediate response.

When self-declared humanitarians set sail to "end the blockade on Gaza," their efforts must be stopped at all costs. Likewise, when "anarchists" instigate trouble that threatens the lives and wellbeing of the security forces, they should be imprisoned or deported. When the enemy bombards the very electric plant that supplies electricity to Gaza, the flow of electricity must be stopped.

If a rocket is launched against a civilian population, there must be a greater, not a proportionate, response. When a kidnapped Israeli soldier has not seen a soul other than his captors for the past four years, there must be a reaction. In the Middle East, the only discernible language is strength, great strength. Yet, Israel is embroiled in internal debate, led by the "Pro-Peace Pro-Israel" camp of J Street or the New Israel Fund and other Israel haters that undermine its national welfare.

For Israel to survive, Israelis must change direction. No one can do it for them. Our own contributions should not be those to non-profit organizations, too numerous to count. Our sole contribution should be to alert Israel to what we witness with our eyes wide open, what she does not see, or prefers to subdue quietly. Israel is on a straight collision course and some see the existential impact coming. Yet our waves, shouts, rush to alert the driver and the occupants just seem to fall on deaf ears and blind eyes, deflected from the windows of a vehicle otherwise immune and oblivious to the outside world.

We cannot want more for Israel than she wants for herself. Sadly, we are left to pray a leader will arise who will have the inner conviction of Israel's natural and historical rights, will not hesitate to sacrifice some of life's momentary conveniences for a better future and who will draw from Israel's Eternal Book, the binding bond, her core, for a modern day existence in peace and security.

Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Babu Suseelan, May 23, 2010.

I saw a sign in front of McDonald: "One Billion Served.". There are more than one billion Jihadis are around the world still serving for the cause of invisible Allah. In their service to Allah, Jihadis have killed millions of people, caused enormous economic loses, and still serving Allah and creating problems for infidels.

What we should do? Jihadi Imams and Jihadi terrorists have created enormous problems for us. There are many proven, effective ways to reduce or handle problems created by Muslims. DOING NOTHING IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

Knowing the true nature of Islam is the first priority for all infidels. An informed infidel can challenge the criminal document called the Koran.

Letting the hard issues pile up without even looking at them is not going to help us, the infidels. Islam is not a religion. It is a desert originated 6th century political dogma for invasion, plunder, looting, sexual exploitation of women and oppression. It is time to understand the criminal treatise called Koran and Haidth and past brutalities of Islam. It is time to face facts, whatever they are, and move forward.

Muslims with Saudi Money is fast converting criminal population in America and Canada. Correctional inmates are in prison for their crimes. They are criminal thinkers and do heinous crimes without fear, shame, remorse or guilt. Islamic dogma encourages criminal activities and support criminals in their sex predatory behavior and provides opportunities for amplifying their deviant characteristics. Ninety five percent of criminal inmates will be released on parole. Once they are converted into Islam, they will act as hidden Jihadis in our communities. They will pose a potential danger to our community.

Citizens need to work with nationalist groups and expose the hidden agenda of Imams. Ninety Nine percent of the Imams working in correctional institutions are from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Sudan, Yemen and Somalia. They have a vested interest in converting criminal population and make them Jihadis.

Letting the Islamic conversion of criminals and other hard issues pile up without even looking at them is not going to help us. The fact is even the Ostriches do not really bury their heads in the sand. That would make them horribly vulnerable. Dr. Babu Suseelan is a professor of clinical psychology and the director of a drug and alcohol treatment program in Pennsylvania. A former Muslim, he writes on the subject of Islamic terrorism and its effect on Hindu society.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 23, 2010.

My desire to set the record straight, when it's possible to do so, makes me a bit compulsive. Having worked on another project all day, I was not planning on posting today. And yet... this is important.

The distortion I respond to today is not an Arab one, but from an Israeli official. Inadvertently or not, it covers up some harsh realities.


Once again writing jointly, Khaled Abu Toameh and Herb Keinon reported in today's JPost that Fatah is warning of a return to "armed struggle" if the "proximity talks" fail.

Abbas Zaki, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Fatah Central Committee, made threats during an interview with Al Ghad, a Jordanian newspaper. Besides keeping open the option of "armed struggle," Zaki said that the Palestinian Arabs might also demand the implementation of UN Resolution 181, of 1947, which called for the partition of Palestine, with Jerusalem (joined with Bethlehem) controlled internationally as a Corpus Separatum.

The second threat can be dispensed with. For this resolution came from the General Assembly and is thus only a recommendation without force within international law; it cannot be "implemented." What is more, the Arabs rejected it in 1947.

What concerns me is the first threat, of violence: "We shouldn't give Israel more time. We must start thinking of all forms of struggle and taking measures to make Israel pay a price for its aggressive practices."


And here's where things get problematic:

According to this report:

"A senior Israeli official characterized Palestinian threats about a return to violence as a 'serious problem.'

"'The whole peace process with the Palestinians was based on a commitment by Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian leadership that the Palestinian national movement was going to abrogate violence and pursue engagement through negotiations. If they return to violence they are taking us back to the days before the Oslo process.'"


And I'm here to tell you that he's wrong.

Sure the process was based on the illusion of a commitment by Arafat to renounce violence. Undoubtedly our leaders believed it at the start. Or so I assume.

But it was never, ever Arafat's intention. And Israel continued to pretend it was, long after there was reason to know better. When should Israel have first begun to realize what was afoot? A mere ten days after the signing of the Gaza-Jericho First agreement that was a follow-up to the original accord. That is, until May 10, 1994.

That's when Arafat went to Johannesburg, South Africa and gave a speech in a mosque, in English. He spoke off the record, but his talk was discreetly recorded by a South African journalist and then made public.

Arafat said, famously:

This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraysh...

That should have rung some bells, somewhere. Islamic academics would have understood, and everyone else should have rushed to find out what it meant.

The short of it is that in 628, Muhammad, who was not yet powerful, made a 10-year peace pact with the Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca. Two years later, when he had garnered sufficient strength, he abrogated the treaty, attacked the (unsuspecting) Quraysh with overwhelming force and took Mecca.


That, my friends, was the model for how Arafat viewed the Oslo Accords. This should be noted well, because Arafat set the tone for what is proceeding to this day. Understand: He was Mahmoud Abbas's mentor.

They pretend peaceful intentions (although they're not even doing that very well today), but remain prepared to hit us whenever it suits them. As Dennis Ross, who was a special envoy to the Middle East for President Clinton, later wrote, Arafat never relinquished the "terrorism card."


The lesson we refused to learn back in the mid-90s was that it was time to call a halt to Oslo as soon as it was clear the Arabs weren't sincere. But we kept moving along as if...

"As if..." is very dangerous. It is not a luxury, or a foolishness, we can afford right now.


And then there is the statement, from this Israeli official, that if the Palestinian Arabs return to violence it is taking us back to before Oslo. Now, perhaps he had no clue about the Quraysh. But he knows about what was called the "second intifada," and therefore, surely, he must know that his statement is in error.

Briefly: In 2000, then prime minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat a deal, which, thank heaven, he rejected, even though it would have given the Arabs almost all of Judea and Samaria, all of Gaza, eastern Jerusalem and sharing of the holy sites, etc. Details are not relevant here, except to say that they weren't to Arafat's liking.

So he didn't request further negotiations. He fell back to plan B: He resorted to violence. That's the pattern.

The pretense was that this was a "spontaneous" uprising in response to the "provocation" of a visit to the Temple Mount (OUR Temple Mount, which they insist is theirs) by Ariel Sharon. In point of fact, and I have documentation, it was premeditated. Arafat had put out the word and they were simply waiting for the hook to hang it on, to make it "our" fault.

Arafat surely intended to teach us a lesson. But instead, by 2002, as things got very ugly, he got hit with Operation Defensive Shield, which quieted matters down and took the IDF back into areas from which we had pulled out.


The painful reality is that more Jews died from terror attacks AFTER Oslo than before.


Now, have we learned nothing? Does our government not see that we're headed that way again? They'll pretend to negotiate, and break it off in discontent with protests about our unreasonableness, and they'll hit us again.

We can squash them again, but be aware, good old General Dayton is in there, training PA "security forces." So they'll be better equipped this time.


There was news last night and today about an ostensible agreement between Israel and the PA concerning the principle of a land trade (meaning we would keep some communities in Judea and Samaria and give them some land inside the Green Line). Abbas, who is the one who announced this, is not saying how much he would agree to swap, and Israel is saying that it's not good to talk publicly about what's being discussed. Which leaves us no where in terms of anything definitive. Maybe Abbas is making it up, maybe Netanyahu doesn't want it know what he's saying. I do not intend to belabor this here.


Instead I will close with a good news item, as promised yesterday, and with thanks to Joel K., who shared this with me.

You have here a link to footage from the Steven Spielberg film archives that shows incredible scenes from our pre-state history, our founding, and much more. Enjoy and share, as it is moving and stunning:
http://w3.castup.net:80/JFA/FilmsScreen.asp? NFilm=format%3Dwm%26s%3D8F442B3337034892 ACC92596201F5E81%26ci%3D17509%26ak%3Dnull %26ClipMediaID%3D23331

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, May 23, 2010.

Everywhere the free world seems to be on the run. Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in direct or indirect liason, an ambivalent US not willing to ruffle feathers in Islamic circles more for creating vote-banks than long term strategic interests, N.Korea brazenly firing torpedoes to sink a South Korean vessel, the Shiite groups gaining the upper hand in Iraq, the ongoing and seemingly endless war in the Af-Pak region and a steadily destabilizing Pakistan with the spectre of the Taliban and allied groups seizing control sooner or later and the Taliban taking on the US military at Bagram.

Israel alone seems to be fighting and standing up to the devils. The international community (whatever it is) is bent on making another Masada of the Jewish state through its tacit support for the terrorist groups and their ideological/political cohorts.

Moral bankruptcy and political correctness have reached ridiculous heights.

Contact Kaustav Chakrabarti by email kaustav12000@yahoo.co.in

To Go To Top

Posted by Paut Rotenberg

Assume this is true, Jaffo is on the table, what will happen when they get to discussing contiguity?

Assume it is not true, why isn't Israel putting out statements as to what the PA is agreeing to, true or not, statements that promote the Israeli perspective. Like "The PA have agreed that all settlements will remain" or "The PA has agreed to accept the centrality of the Sanremo Accords as the basis for Israeli continued presence along the Jordan River"

This is infuriating because it sets an expectation that is not being countered by the Israeli government. Have they no dignity, no spine, no self respect, no understanding of what they are doing and who they are dealing with.


This below is from the Mary 22, 2010 Associated Press and it is archived at
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100522/ abbas-land-swap-100522/20100522


Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas holds a sticker for the campaign to boycott and ban Israeli settlement products from the Palestinian territories, in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Saturday, May 22, 2010. (AP / Majdi Mohammed)

RAMALLAH — The Palestinians are ready to swap some land with Israel, although differences remain over the amount of territory to be traded, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Saturday after two rounds of U.S.-led indirect peace talks.

The negotiations began earlier this month, with U.S. envoy George Mitchell shuttling between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Abbas' comments marked the first time a participant has provided details about the talks.

Abbas said the first round dealt with borders and security arrangements between Israel and the state the Palestinians hope to establish in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with east Jerusalem as its capital.

Israel wants to annex major Jewish settlements in the war-won West Bank and east Jerusalem. In previous negotiations, the two sides agreed that Israel would swap some of its territory to compensate the Palestinians, but gaps remained on the amount of land to be traded.

Abbas dismissed recent media reports that the Palestinians are willing to trade more land than in the past, saying: "We did not agree about the land area, but we agreed on the principle of swapping land (equal) in quality and value."

In 2008, the Palestinians offered to cede 1.9 per cent of the West Bank to Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert. Olmert sought a 6.5 per cent swap.

It is not clear whether Netanyahu accepts the idea of a land swap, and if so, how much of the West Bank he wants to keep. Israel has moved nearly half a million of its citizens into dozens of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem since capturing those territories in the 1967 Mideast War.

Netanyahu spokesman Mark Regev declined to comment on Abbas' remarks and would not say whether Netanyahu agreed to the principle of land swaps.

"I cannot go into the content of the talks. If these talks are to succeed, and we hope that they do, they have to be done with discretion," Regev said.

A land swap would be crucial to any final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Talks resumed in early May after a 17-month breakdown.

Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, May 23, 2010.

Why build a mosque at Ground Zero? Do Muslims want to convince America, the world, with such 'in your face' symbolism that Islam is not responsible for the horrific events of 09/11/2001? Might the sponsors of this proposal, presumably to support tolerance, unity, the antithesis of radical Islam, be willing to fly flags of all nations, including Israel, prominently, within the structure's courtyard? Better yet, would those sponsors be willing to more than symbolically denounce the dark side of Islam; the side that coerces women to wear head to toe garments thus not arouse the lust in men, the side that threatens to destroy the 'infidel'; from the pulpits of their mosque; as well as throughout the worldwide media? Specifically, would they be willing to confront Iran's president, Mahmoud AhMADinejad, harshly condemning his hateful Holocaust denial rhetoric, his threat to destroy Israel? Would they be willing to assert that when a suicide bomber blows him or herself up, or any Muslim plants/sets off an explosive, he also blows up the Koran? Would they be willing to conduct interfaith services within their mosque on occasion? Most essentially, would they be willing to erect a shrine honoring all those who perished when radical Islamic savages flew American planes into the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon; crashed over Pennsylvania?

Unless sponsors of the project are willing to truly accept responsibility for the blasphemers of their faith; those who spit on civilization; proposing to build a mosque at Ground Zero reeks with arrogance. Remaining silent, distancing themselves, refusing to confront those who pervert peaceful tolerant Islam is unacceptable. Only aggressive acts of atonement for the heinous deeds of 9/11/2001 should allow them to be considered for the momentous honor of receiving permits to build on what is truly sacred ground; most desirably as part of a faith based mega-complex of structures representing Judaism, Christianity and other religions willing to participate!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 23, 2010.


Ma'ariv columnist Ben Dror-Yemeni analyzed the Palestinian Arab false historical narrative, with these sub-topics: (1) A British research group spend years in Palestine, mapping the area population of about 100,000 residents in 1878, just before modern Zionism mass-immigration of Jews and Arabs; (2) There never was a country," Palestine" nor a Palestinian nationality; (3) 50 million refugees from the World Wars assimilated quickly, but the Palestinian Arabs and UNRWA are extending a now phony refugee status for generations; (4) The Jews suffered a greater catastrophe, but did not try to destroy their former countries; and (5) This article discusses "The fraud that is called the right of return."

Many Arab journalists have adopted the Arab version of history. Mr. Dror-Yemeni asked them, "When have deportees who declared war, and lost that war, been granted the "right of return?" Is there one among the dozens of groups and the tens of millions who experienced expulsion in the past century that has been granted a "right of return" in a manner that caused the political annihilation of a nation state? He says they cannot answer.

A Palestinian Authority document "...claims that there are precedents for a 'right of return.' The most serious example presented there is the Dayton Agreement of 1995 which allows the return, for example, of Serbs to Croatia. The circumstances, however, are different. First, the return was never implemented. Croatia allowed the return of Croatians but placed barriers on the return of Serbs. Second,...the return would not have undermined the existence of Croatia as the national state of the Croatian people."

The document refers to a 1997 agreement on Azerbaijan. "...a report from 2002 shows that the Muslims who were exiled to Azerbaijan did not return to Armenia, and the Armenians who arrived as refugees did not return to Azerbaijan. In effect, the Armenian constitution grants the right of return only to Armenians (similar to the Israeli Law of Return, which exists [for other ethnic groups] in other countries around the world)."

"The other examples...from Africa and South America, are also irrelevant to the many population exchanges around the world and certainly to the population exchanges between the Arab countries and Israel."

"The most serious reference to the issue of the right of return is in the Cypress agreement initiated by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. The agreement does not recognize the right of return, despite the fact that the European Court of Human Rights recognized the rights of petitioners on the Greek side of Turkey to return and to the restoration of property. In other words, not every legal precedent becomes a political truth. The agreement was welcomed by the international community in general and by the European Union in particular." However, "...the right of return there was limited so that the Turkish majority, on the Turkish side, would always be at least eighty percent."

The Palestinian Authority also cites UN resolution 194. The Arabs had opposed it. It is based on Resolution 242, which "grants international legitimacy to recognition of the Jewish state." These resolutions also subject any return to genuine peace. But "... as Abu-Mazen stated in May 2009, he does not recognize the Jewish state because it is liable to prevent the return of the masses." (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/20.)

Prof. Plaut has cited the example of the American Revolution. The peace agreement called for the expulsion of the pro-British loyalists from the United States, and not return. The U.S. was supposed to pay compensation for property they had to leave behind, but reneged on that. The Palestinian Arabs are demanding compensation for themselves and not for the far greater number and far greater property of Jews expelled from Arab states.


A $100 million project, called the Cordoba initiative, is building a mosque in a New York building adjacent to the Twin Towers and damaged in 9/11. The Majid Mosque project appeals for funds to build a second mosque nearby. "In fact, the website appealing for donations boldly states that it plans to "build the 'House of Allah' next to the World Trade Center. Help us raise the flag of 'LA ILLAH ILLA ALLAH' in downtown Manhattan." [http://goo.gl/qrq0].

Hebron has the Cordoba Girls' School, where children learn that murdering Jews earns their place in Paradise.

Cordoba was the capital of Islamic Spain for 500 years, one of Europe's biggest cities. They named the mosque project Cordoba. Why? Probably so as not to forget and in anticipation of restoring Islamic control. The al-Qaeda affiliate that confessed to bombing Spanish trains in 1994 explained, "This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader..." [http://goo.gl/SOBg]. Islamic groups still blame Christian Spain for ending the Caliphate hundreds of years ago in Cordoba (Hebron Jewish Community, 5/21)

(One of my readers thought that Islamists have forgotten the old desire to recapture lost conquests.)

Since the U.S. offers freedom of religion, and does not treat Islam's Islamist offshoots as a subversive political movement, Muslims have a right to build mosques where they buy property. But people who keep telling America to be soft toward Muslims "sensitivity," should give some consideration to defending New Yorkers' sensitivity. There is an element here of "in your face" defiance.

This kind of affront is not unique to New York. In Jerusalem, Muslims built a mosque alongside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, with bathrooms overhanging it, as if to show superiority. In Bethlehem, Muslims tried to usurp the public plaza needed to accommodate pilgrims to the Church of the Nativity, for another mosque. As it is, churchgoers sometimes have to run a gauntlet of hostile Muslims, there.

A similar do-one-better aspect characterizes a mosque project in Rome. By contrast, In Saudi Arabia, churches are not allowed to bear outward identification. In Egypt, churches (and not mosques) are not allowed to be built or be renovated except with government permission, not readily granted. Some people ask why not ban mosques in the West, until churches are not banned in the East.

The question really is whether the West is wise to let in a people with a political movement, masked as religion, whose political ideology is to conquer the West.


Aided by U.S. intelligence, Turkey sent about 20 warplanes to bomb Kurdish PKK terrorists moving from mountain hideouts in Iraq toward the Turkish border. Spring thaws the terrorists. Turkey claims to have struck 50 targets, and the Kurds claim to have suffered no casualties.

About 2,000 terrorists were estimated to have been holed up in the autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq. The PKK rebellion has cost about 45,000 lives (IMRA, 5/21/10).

Casualties in this conflict are 30 times as high as the combat in Gaza, and probably get 1/30th of media attention.

During my U.S. military training, the sergeants related admiringly how stoic were Turkish allied troops captured and mistreated by North Korea. Nevertheless, formerly, the U.S. did not cooperate with Turkey against Kurdish terrorism in Iraq, which the U.S. occupied at the time. Would U.S.-Turkish relations be better now, if the U.S. had cooperated from the start? Would Israeli-Turkish relations be better now, if when Turkey faced Syria down, at a time when Turkey had an informal alliance with Israel, PM Netanyahu had mobilized the IDF on the Syrian border, to demonstrate solidarity with Turkey? Instead, he moved troops away from the border, to demonstrate neutrality. Neutrality contradicts alliance. An alliance is supposed to be mutual.

When the U.S. or Israel bombs Islamic terrorists, not because the U.S. or Israel is prejudiced but because the terrorists are and commit aggression over it, Muslims complain that Muslims are getting killed. When Turkey bombs Kurdish terrorists, and Kurdish terrorists kill Turks, nobody complains then that Muslims are getting killed.


The misconception that attributes all Mideast strife to Israel views the conflict superficially. Tribal and violently feuding Muslim countries have warred on many countries inside and outside the region. Their society has gone from feudalism through militarism, Communism, nationalism, and Islamism. They are trying to modernize without reforming their value system that appears inconsistent with modern values.

Some of those countries are engendering a radical ideology that even attacks their own governments as insufficiently pure ideologically. When defeated, they beg for refuge abroad, and then turn against their new hosts.

Some Mideast countries are failing. Their rulers find it convenient to distract attention from those failures by rallying the people against imagined crimes by Israel. The Arab shame-honor syndrome makes it especially difficult to acknowledge error, so, again, they blame Israel for their own problems. For example, they attacked Israel, lost, and a few hundred thousand Arabs fled from Israel. They blame Israel for their loss, but their aggression resulted in that loss. They are their own worst enemies.

If they took a moderate view of Islam, and did not feel they had to conquer states belonging to other faiths, they could leave Israel in peace. But they do not take a moderate view. They fabricate accusations against Israel. They dream up all sorts of unsubstantiated claims of attempted poisoning by Israel, and then get aroused over it. Their leaders, including ones that the West prefers to consider moderate, such as Abbas and the King of Jordan, make up accusations that Israel is undermining, attacking, or planning to attack al-Aqsa mosque. (Absurd, that after about 90 years of such claims, the mosque still stands and the IDF can't do what the Arabs claim it wants to do!) Hearing the accusations, masses of Arabs often riot against Israelis. It all is demagoguery.

Suppose Israel did not exist. Would Sudan stop dispossessing, enslaving, and exterminating black citizens? Would northern and southern Yemen stop their civil war? Would Syria end its drive to absorb Lebanon and other areas? Would the Moslem Brotherhood stop trying to dominate Egypt and Algeria? Would Iran no longer think of the U.S. as the great Satan? Would the Polissario Front reconcile itself to Moroccan rule? Would the Radical Muslims leave Somalia be? Would all other border claims in the region disappear? Would Iran release democrats from prison? Would Pakistan develop public education? Would the Taliban stop trying to impose medieval ways upon Afghanistan?

One could go on, but it has become clear that calling Israel the cause of Mideast struggles by states and organizations struggling all over and over all, is just to scapegoat.

A better case could be made that Israel is a force for stability in the Mideast. It is a stabilizer to the extent that it acts in its own interest and not to appease its enemies and its critics as by withdrawal from Gaza and Lebanon.

In a way, by being the scapegoat for the Arabs, it serves as a unifying force among them, or they might fracture more.

Israel prevents Hamas from making war on the Judea-Samaria part of the Palestinian Authority. Years ago, it helped discourage a Syrian invasion of Jordan. It distracted Egypt's Nasser from his invasion of Yemen, perhaps on his way to Saudi Arabia. It dislodged the PLO from supremacy in Lebanon. It helped keep Soviet influence minimal in the Mideast. Israel eliminated nuclear bomb factories of both Iraq and Syria.


Hamas made political prisoners of Fatah men, and Fatah made prisoners of Hamas men. Holding these hostages was one impediment to Egyptian efforts to unify the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) government. That impediment is now removed (IMRA, 5/21/10).

Some people think that peace cannot be made without unifying the two parts of the P.A.. Otherwise, who speaks for the entity and who can make peace. That kind of thinking is misconceived. It mistakenly assumes that some authorities there want peace.

Uniting those two movements would give Hamas an opportunity to dominate the whole P.A.. Into its hands, for use in terrorist war, would fall the troops trained by the U.S. to fight terrorists. On the other hand, if Fatah were to win, not likely, it would gain forces useful in its jihad against Israel. Neither faction wants peace. Both want to conquer Israel.


The two slain are from Islamic Jihad (AP/Khalil Hamra)

A couple of terrorists attempted to infiltrate from Gaza into Israel. A firefight began, in which two of the intruders were killed. The IDF said they were armed with two assault rifles and two protective vests. Maan news said they were unarmed boys trying to sneak in to find work. But the Hamas regime claimed them as "resistance fighters."

Mortar fire from both sides was continuing, at the time of the report, on Saturday (IMRA, 5/21/10).


Russia's Putin and Indian PM Manmohan Singh (AP/Manish Swarup).

India has 1.2 billion people. More than 83% are Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, and Jain. They embrace Indian culture and traditions from ancient Indian scripture. "They consider themselves the sons of the soil."

The remainder of the population is 13.49% Muslim and 2.349% Christian. "Their forefathers were Hindus. They had been converted to alien religions during Islamic and then Christian rule in India by force, fraud, and allurement. Hindus consider conversion of their people to other religions as aggression."

There are mini-Pakistans in India. In the states of Bengal and Assam, Muslims constitute 30% and 33% of the population, respectively. With their concentrated, one-issue voting bloc, Muslims dominate the provincial governments. "Hindus have to appease Muslims." [This is an eye-opener to people who think that democracy means majority rule.] It can be dangerous for Hindus to enter areas of concentrated Muslim population.

Muslims in India have been President and Cabinet ministers, including Education Minister, and judges. The head of the ruling Congress Party is a Christian, as are the Defense Minister and government advisers.

Muslims also are the prominent ones in India's underworld, Kataria says. The number one gangster in India, who is persona non grata in the U.S., is Dawood Ibrahim, a Muslim.

The Muslims organize communally. They ally themselves with the Left and others to gain disproportionate influence. The Hindus are not represented as such in India's parliament.

India's media is predominantly secularist, Christian, Muslim, and leftist. The media represses news of value to Hindus. Indeed, although Hindus still are being driven out of the Kashmir Valley of India, the media ignores this and the government does nothing. Hindus, in a sense, are kept down, Kataria believes.

What worries Kataria is a lack of realization in India of the danger of piecemeal Muslim takeover and a lack of strategy for opposing terrorism.


Scotland released Lockerbie bomber Al-Megrahi to Libya, there to await his death from cancer in an estimated three months. That was in August, about nine months ago. He received a hero's welcome home and still is living there.

He has outlived three other prisoners released on compassionate grounds. Their relatives are indignant that Al-Megrahi still lives.

Scotland claims it released him out of compassion, but observers said he did not seem terminally ill and his release helped British business interests with Libya (IMRA, 5/21/10).

Someone is always the last one standing. That is not a fair basis for indignation. Releasing that mass-murderer for business reasons is.

What do you think of Libyans giving the mass-murderer a hero's welcome? Jihad is popular there, isn't it! That has implications about who the West's enemy is.


P.M. Netanyahu at the Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva giving a nationalist speech. Now he's ceding land. (AP/Sebastian Scheiner)

Isrsrael and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) reportedly concur on land swaps. The question is why.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 does not require land swaps, and does not Israel to withdraw to the 1967 lines. The premise for land swaps would be that the area belongs to the Arabs (IMRA, 5/21/10).

That premise has no foundation, since it is not based on prior sovereignty nor any Security Council Resolution. One should bear in mind that the P.A. calls Israel, itself, occupied.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Levi, Yaacov, May 23, 2010.
This was written Gil Ronen, who writes for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today.

All the locations given here are close to my home there, Har Bracha is five miles across the valley from Itamar.


Arab rioters in Samaria hurled rocks at a car bearing Israeli license plates Saturday evening, wounding a Jewish woman who was inside it. The woman suffered light injuries and was later evacuated to a hospital.

Her husband got out of the car and opened fire in the direction of an adjoining olive grove, where he believed the attackers were located. The bullets did not hurt anyone. The incident took place outside the village of Azzoun, near Shaarei Tikva.

After firing in defense of himself and his wife, the Jewish man reportedly hurled rocks at an Arab vehicle outside Azzoun. No one was hurt but the car was damaged.

Israel Police have launched an investigation.

Israeli law enforcement authorities are considered extremely strict as regards the right of Jews to use their weapons in self defense. While the Israeli ethos in the early decades of the state openly favored the bearing of firearms by able-bodied men as a part of a general deterrent posture, a Department of Justice report by Attorney Yehudit Karp determined, in 1982, that Jews in Judea and Samaria are given too much freedom to use their guns against Arabs. An additional report by Karp in 1989 led to further limitations on the bearing and use of firearms by all Israeli men, citing a concern that they would use them to threaten or shoot their own wives.

Recently, the IDF, too, was reported to have issued strict instructions to soldiers regarding the use of firearms against Arab marauders. Soldiers were reportedly told to refrain from shooting to kill even if attacked by a fire bomber. Soldiers are reportedly expected to shoot at a fire bomber's legs, and even then — only up to knee level.

In other rioting on Saturday, about 20 Arabs threw rocks at the fence surrounding Karmei Tzur in Gush Etzion. Security forces used riot gear to disperse them.

About 30 Arabs ran wild near the community of Har Bracha in Samaria. They hurled rocks at security forces who responded with riot gear. (IsraelNationalNews.com)

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, May 23, 2010.

It is probable that the Obama Administration has done more harm to Lebanon than to any other country in the world. Either Brennan should be fired or the Obama Administration should admit that he is accurately representing its policy, in which case the Obama Administration should be fired.


Well, no. He's done more harm to the US than to Lebanon. We wish he would take another international bow-movement tour and this time stay put in Riyadh.

Yep, we read enough of BHO's so-called "health care reform" legislation — a dirty joke on the American public, which causes us to refer to BHO as the "master illusionist" and we sure hope Israel isn't taken in by his fantasy about "reformatting" the arabs (whom you errantly refer to as "palestinians". We say the only real Palestinians were and are the Jews.) We adhere to the reasoning of Prof. Howard Grief in his magnificent new book: A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty over the Land of Israel: "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law". Well reasoned, easy to read. Persuasive!

The boundaries of Israel encompass the very regions some very ignorant or fantastical Jews want to trade for peace with the arabs. We also studied the koran and we therefore know that trading land for "peace" will spell the total extermination of you, not them. The US fought for over a hundred and fifty years to solidify the US as a nation — what makes you think you have to have "peace at any price"? You've only put in 62 years!

We enjoy most of your group's opinions, but please do hold your fire and respect the fact that we hold bolder opinions than you when we say: "Restore Jewish Palestine (israel) from the ocean to the sea, the way Israel was agreed to be." We believe that the more Jews stall, the worse it will become for Israel. Take what is yours.

FYI: we do know the law, and we do know who has violated it, both in the US and in Israel. The law is on Israel's side. And we pray that the day will come when the majority of Israelis demand the restoration of all of its lands as set forth under the San Remo Resolution.

Viva Israel from the SC4Z — SC4Z

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

To Go To Top

Posted by HebreProductions, May 23, 2010.


We the good citizens of the great State of Florida, having found disfavor in the abandonment of the State of Israel, and the mistreatment of her prime minister at the hands of our federal administration, do hereby and hereunto declare the following:

Whereas, Israel has proven itself to be the United States' most steadfast and consistent ally in the world, and thus worthy of our respect, loyalty and admiration; and

Whereas Israel has partnered with the United States in making a myriad of advances in technology, science and medicine benefiting not only both countries, but the world at large; and

Whereas Israel has joined the United States in providing life-saving emergency aid to grief-stricken peoples all over the world; and

Whereas Israel has constantly been and continues to be beset by hostile Arab and Muslim enemies, some of whom deny the Holocaust, and all of whom prepare for another one; and

Whereas Israel has always possessed the technical means to annihilate all its enemies but has never even thought to do so; and

Whereas, Israel stands at the front-line of the radical Muslim onslaught dedicated to the elimination of Western Civilization, should ever it acquire the technical means to do so; and

Whereas Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Israelite race and Jewish State, and Judaea and Samaria the historic bedrock of Jewish civilization; and

Whereas Israel has repeatedly outstretched her hand to her Arab neighbors in peace only to be met with the fist of war:

We the people demand and insist that the Obama administration CEASE AND DESIST from pressuring Israel to give up more land, rights and privileges to its enemies while its enemies, chiefly Iran, plan her destruction.

For all these reasons, and it having been that this great nation of ours was founded on the principles of truth, justice, fairness and reciprocity, We the People STAND UP for the State of Israel and demand that the Obama administration do the same!

Contact HebreProductions at hebrewproductions@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, May 23, 2010.

1. Well, later this week the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), a leftist think tank funded by the New Israel Fund and the Eurocrats, will be holding an academic conference on the advantages and disadvantages of annihilating Israel. To be fair, that is not the conference's official title. The official title is "An International Workshop on Bi-Nationalism."

The conference will host a group of academics, almost all of them from the far-Left. Some will tell the audience how wonderful it would be to turn Israel into a Middle East Rwanda, a "bi-national state." A few will express opposition to the idea. You know, so's it will be balanced.

The conference's announcement can be read here, much of it in English:
www.idi.org.il/events1/NonfictionDays/Pages/ Conferences_71.aspx

It follows up a similar conference at York University last year, in which some of the same people appeared, where the official goal of that conference was to find alternatives to Israel's existence.

Now clearly the IDI is trying to "break the taboo" about conducting serious consideration and debate over the idea of annihilating Israel. While some at the conference will speak against a Rwanda solution for Israel, the very fact that a Think Tank in Israel is holding a conference about the possibility of annihilating Israel is what is significant here. If the conference organizers were honest, they would hold a conference on the topic of the Advantages and Disadvantages of shipping off Israeli Jews to Death Camps operated by Islamists, and then allow a few of the speakers to speak against the idea.

The University of Haifa, though, is even less disingenuous. Tomorrow it will be holding a small panel featuring two Arabs and a leftist Anti-Zionist lecturer in English (Ron Kuzar) who will all celebrate the idea of the Palestinian Right of Return and demand that Israel's existence as a Jewish state be ended and that it be turned into a nice Rwanda.

2. Don't you love poetic justice? Ben Gurion University has long been one of the centers of the anti-Israel academic Left inside Israel and the capital for calls from tenured traitors for a world boycott of Israel.

Well, Cowabunga! Now it turns out that a South Africa "University" wants to boycott Ben Gurion University, in response no doubt to the bleatings of Comrade Neve Gordon and his BGU friends in mufti:

Varsity row over Israel links
by Lionel Faull
May 21 2010 12:00

The University of Johannesburg (UJ) is considering cutting academic ties with Israel's Ben-Gurion University (BGU) in protest against Ben Gurion's alleged association with Palestinian human rights abuses.

An "extraordinary" meeting of the university's senate debated the matter on Monday.

The university's current partnership with Ben Gurion dates from August when the two signed an academic cooperation and staff exchange agreement, relating to water purification and micro-algal biotechnology research.

This re-established a relationship forged between the former Rand Afrikaans University (RAU) and Ben Gurion in the apartheid 1980s. RAU merged with Technikon Witwatersrand in 2005 to form the University of Johannesburg.

In October, 52 academic staff members signed a petition opposing the current partnership. It states in part: "The Palestinian people are currently victims of an Israeli occupation, which violates their human rights as well as international law. Their plight has been repeatedly compared with that of black South Africans under apartheid."

Professor Steven Friedman presented the pro-boycott argument in the senate on behalf of the petitioners. "We are not asking UJ to join a boycott campaign against Israel," said Friedman, who is the director of the joint UJ-Rhodes University Centre for the Study of Democracy.

"But we are asking them not to sign agreements with institutions which collaborate with governments that commit human rights violations," he told the Mail & Guardian.

Friedman argued that:

Israel has 53 apartheid-style laws that discriminate between Jews and non-Jews; The Israeli occupation of Gaza is a colonial exercise; and The Ben Gurion offers stipends and partial exemptions from its degree requirements to members of the Israeli military, and tenders for Israeli Defence Force research contracts. The partnership was defended in the senate meeting by Professor Ilan Troen, the Ben Gurion's founding dean of humanities and social sciences, and South African advocate David Unterhalter.

Troen flew to South Africa from Israel for the meeting; Unterhalter appeared pro bono. Their participation was organised by the South African Associates of Ben Gurion University, the president of which, Bertram Lubner, is vice-chairperson of Ben Gurion's board of governors. Lubner is an honorary life member of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies.


Troen told the M&G he was "surprised" that a "water purification project that is of manifest benefit to South Africans and an academic cooperation of 20 years' standing between two institutions" should be questioned. He said the proposed boycott was reprehensible. "It is understandable that South Africans should interpret other societies in terms of their own experiences, but the apartheid metaphor is a fallacy."

Petition signatory Salim Vally, a senior researcher in UJ's Centre for Education Rights and Transformation, said: "RAU played a particular role in cooperating with apartheid. It was on the wrong side of history then and we don't want UJ to be on the wrong side now."

The university's SRC president, Emmanuel Mapheto, echoed this: "We cannot allow our institution to partner BGU. What Israel is doing in Palestine amounts to apartheid," he said.

The senate unanimously resolved that a nine-member committee, led by UJ deputy vice-chancellor Adam Habib, should make recommendations on the matter to the senate within three months.

Source: Mail & Guardian Online
Web Address:
(Friedman teaches literature by the way, making him an expert on the Middle East)

Want to tell the brand new rector of BGU what you think of this? Contact:

New rector at BGU is
Zvi HaCohen
Phone: +972-8-6596801
Fax: +972-8-6596802
E-Mail: cohen@bgumail.bgu.ac.il

and rector@bgu.ac.il
Prof. Lily Neumann, Vice-Rector
Tel: 972-8-6477955
Fax: 972-8-6479434
Email: lily@bgu.ac.il

Prof. Yael Edan, Deputy-Rector
Tel: 972-8-6479140
Fax: 972-8-6479434
Email: yael@bgu.ac.il

3. You know how the New Israel Fund and its fellow rhino horn wearers have been attacking the Im Tirtzu student group because it accepted a donation from a pro-Israel church group? Remember how they said this proved that Im Tirtzu students are fascists and harmful to Israeli democracy?

Well, what happens when anti-Israel Jewish groups are offered money by anti-Semitic church groups? Find out here:

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 22, 2010.


In still another episode on Hamas TV, the animal character, in this case a teddy bear, urges children to commit terrorism and via "martyrdom" gain entry to Paradise. The program features children singing that childhood means nothing without Palestine.

What is "Palestine?" Fatah TV features a map at which children point to Israeli cities, such as Haifa and Jaffa, and the host identifies them as cities in "our state, Palestine." (Arutz-7, 5/21/10 from MEMRI). You know, the state that does not exist and would require the conquest of Israel for it to exist.

Where is the objection to this indoctrination in war from our "unshakable bond with Israel" President and our peace-loving New York Times and our guarantor of international security, the UN? Was it Senator Clinton who called that "child abuse?"


Abbas is campaigning internationally to isolate Israel diplomatically. Israel's PM Netanyahu plans some concessions, perhaps releasing more terrorists who tried to murder Israelis, perhaps leaving more Arab cities under control of Palestinian Authority (P.A.) police.

The P.A. position is that negotiations should resume from Israel's last, best offer, but should not include the Arabs' last, best acknowledgment. Previously, it was understood that a new Arab entity should not be allowed to have a military, and that Israel should be able to station forces (Arutz-7, 5/21/10 from MEMRI).

Israel's turning the other cheek, when the Arabs slap the first one, does not work with them.

A significant number of released terrorists continue trying and sometimes succeeding in murdering more Israelis. Releasing such convicts is indeed a way for Israel to boost Arab confidence, but it is confidence in their ultimate success in destroying Israel. The more concessions Israel makes, the more contempt Arabs and others have for Israel. It does not build goodwill. Can't build goodwill among radical Muslim fanatics and foreign governments that appease them.

Leaving Arab cities under control of P.A. police means extending the havens for terrorists. The P.A. police do not eradicate terrorism. Note the prior article, about P.A. indoctrination in terrorism.

There appears to be an inconsistency in the P.A. negotiating position, in demanding that new Israeli administrations be bound by what the prior ones offered, and releasing the new P.A. administration from what the prior one apparently had accepted. It isn't so much inconsistency as bargaining, reneging on a matter of principle, and arrogance in assuming religious superiority.

PM Netanyahu was too timid or deceptive, when he agreed to an independent P.A. entity but demilitarized, without specifying that in order to become and stay demilitarized, it could not be granted sovereignty. Once sovereign, it need not stay demilitarized. Meanwhile, the U.S. is militarizing the P.A. without the P.A. reversing its education for war.

Why does Netanyahu want to station Israeli forces in the Jordan Valley? Any sizable Israeli concession of territory would deprive Israel of secure borders. At least some security would be retained, if Israel had troops along the border to warn of approaching enemy forces and to start repelling invaders.

Territorial swapping has much to commend it. May I suggest that Israel offer the P.A. Baffin Island in exchange for Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Oh, Israel doesn't have Baffin Island to give? Well, neither do the Palestinian Arabs have title to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Never did.

The New York dailies emphasize that the P.A. is offering a higher percentage of land in the Territories for land in the State of Israel. The dailies call that a concession. The additional percentage is tiny. But again, the P.A. is offering what it does not have title to.


Senior foreign relations official, and member of the EU parliament, Gabriele Albertini, quit a junket to Israel, after realizing it was set up to make anti-Israel propaganda.

The delegation had some sentiment for issuing an anti-Israel statement before it set out to ascertain the facts. However, it did not do that.

Israel rejected the delegation's request to be let into Gaza. The government does not want official missions to lend moral support to the terrorist regime there. Israel also could see that the delegation planned to ascertain and present just the Arab side of the conflict.

Mr. Albertini thought the delegation should change its itinerary, in order to allay Israeli concern. The delegation, however, reacted by entering Gaza through Egypt and showing its own displeasure with Israel by canceling a meeting with the Mayor of Jerusalem (Arutz-7, 5/21/10) and hearing even less of the Israeli side.

What does the delegation think it is, the UN, making up its mind before traveling to see, and presenting a case without having heard the other side?

Considering that Arabs and other Muslims in Europe talk freely about taking over Europe and imposing its oppressive religious rule upon it, one would think Europeans would be more open to other intended victims of jihad, such as Israel. Unfortunately, self-preservation is an art few are practiced in.


Senior foreign relations official, and member of the EU parliament, Gabriele Albertini, quit a junket to Israel, after realizing it was set up to make anti-Israel propaganda.

The delegation had some sentiment for issuing an anti-Israel statement before it set out to ascertain the facts. However, it did not do that.

Israel rejected the delegation's request to be let into Gaza. The government does not want official missions to lend moral support to the terrorist regime there. Israel also could see that the delegation planned to ascertain and present just the Arab side of the conflict.

Mr. Albertini thought the delegation should change its itinerary, in order to allay Israeli concern. The delegation, however, reacted by entering Gaza through Egypt and showing its own displeasure with Israel by canceling a meeting with the Mayor of Jerusalem (Arutz-7, 5/21/10) and hearing even less of the Israeli side.

What does the delegation think it is, the UN, making up its mind before traveling to see, and presenting a case without having heard the other side?

Considering that Arabs and other Muslims in Europe talk freely about taking over Europe and imposing its oppressive religious rule upon it, one would think Europeans would be more open to other intended victims of jihad, such as Israel. Unfortunately, self-preservation is an art few are practiced in.


AIPAC has released "Soldier's Story," a film showing how humane the IDF is.

IDF soldier praying (AP/Ariel Schalit)

One story of the film is about an Israeli unit in Gaza. The commander saw Palestinian Arab troops loading a rocket launcher, from behind a couple of hundred school girls. The only weapons at that unit's disposal were machine guns. Machine guns are not accurate. The commander withheld the order to fire. The rocket was launched into Israel. It had the potential of killing innocent Israelis.

An Israeli pilot has to inform headquarters a minute before he is ready to fire, half a minute before, and 10 seconds before. Perhaps a civilian has come into the line of fire. Many times headquarters ordered him to stand down.

When a pilot is being fired at, he is not allowed to return fire until he verifies where the shots are from. Is the enemy is firing from within a kindergarten? It is a common practice of the Arab enemy to fight from behind children.

By contrast, Hamas fires both from within civilian areas and at civilians areas (Arutz-7, 5/21/10).

When the IDF kills enemy civilians, it is accidental and not terrorism. When the Palestinian Arabs, Hizbullah, and Arab states kill Israeli civilians, it is terrorism and not accidental.

Pro-Arab propaganda does not respect the truth. It is a weapon like terrorism, used unfairly. The propaganda proceeds, even though firing from amid civilians and firing deliberately at civilians are war crimes. The propaganda proceeds, even though international law holds responsible for civilian casualties the side that fortifies civilian areas. Thus Israel, which tries to be considerate of civilians, gets denounced when some get killed. The Arabs, who are inconsiderate both of Israel's civilians and of their own, do not get denounced when civilians on both sides are killed because of illegal Arab tactics.

Does the world's warped reaction to IDF decency give Israel a license to be indecent? No, but perhaps Israel has an exaggerated response that risks its own people's innocent lives to spare enemy lives. Terrorists count on Israel sparing them. Israel's exaggerated sense of decency spurs terrorists to use human shields. Then is IDF policy proper?

Who relishes the position of having to make decisions like those of Israeli headquarters and the commander in Gaza? Yes, pilots should be careful, but perhaps troops on the ground should be sterner.

The news brief did not explain enough. Nowadays, the IDF and the U.S. military have lawyers helping decide whether their troops may fire. Lawyers are cautious. Troops do not want to be punished under politically correct codes. Being too clean, may encourage the enemy to be too dirty.

The U.S. military has changed greatly since the Vietnam War, when it would announce that it had to destroy some village in order to save it from the Vietcong.

This week's Wall St. Journal reports that the U.S. is causing far fewer civilian casualties in Afghanistan, now, but is getting far more complaints about accidental civilian deaths from the President of Afghanistan. "Ya can't win!" Nobody has figured out the answer to the apparent new goal of fighting a war without casualties.

Some of my readers cite casualty figures, which are higher for the Arabs than for Israel. They think that this means that Israel is in the wrong. That kind of logic must be too brilliant for me to understand. I thought casualty figures show which side is fighting harder.

INTRODUCING OBAMA'S ANTI-TERRORISM ADVISER Meet President Obasma's counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan.


John Brennen (AP/CBS, Chris Usher)

In a recent speech, Mr. Brennan referred to his favorite city, "al-Quds, Jerusalem," the first term being the Arab name for that city [named by the Jews about 1,500 years before the Arabs conquered it]. Ayatollah Khomeini initiated "al-Quds Day," an annual signal for anti-Israel demonstrations all over.

Using the Arabic name, in English, for Jerusalem, is pandering to anti-Israel sentiment.

The speech went on to mention Brennan's Arab classmates at American University in Cairo, who desired "to practice our faith freely." "In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques at Mecca and Medina" ('Top Obama Officials Now Calling Jerusalem "Al-Quds,"' YouTube, may 199, 2010).

Is Brennan attempting to deceive fellow Americans or himself, when he alleges some concern for religious freedom by Arabs, and then refers to Saudi Arabia, which bans churches, synagogues, and non-Wahabi mosques?

Brennan wants to encourage "moderate elements" in the officially-declared terrorist organization, Hizbullah, to isolate the militant ones. He did not identify who in Hizbullah is moderate, but Hizbullah has not deviated from its stated goal of destroying Israel. So, while the US. strives to isolate Hizbullah, Brennan lends it legitimacy.

Brennan joins a long line of Obama advisers partial to the Arabs against Israel. Obama, himself, has had viciously anti-Israel friends. He belonged to an anti-Israel and anti-American, black-supremacist church for 20 years. His "Administration has ignited major tensions in its relations with Israel while not holding accountable and [not] penalizing the Palestinian Authority for continuing terrorism and incitement to hatred and murder." (5/21 news release by Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member.)

Like Brennan, other U.S. officials have persuaded themselves, or at least tried to persuade others, that there are moderate elements with fanatical organizations, and that we can work with them. Iran-Contra is one example of the U.S. being made suckers of. Arafat was thought moderate, until it was too absurd to pretend he was. Now Abbas and Fayyad are called moderate, although they glorify terrorism. When the Arab side is totally extremist, officials and the media invent "moderates" among them, so seem to justify continued negotiations instead of just defeating them.

Sure the Muslim Arabs want to practice their religion freely. In Israel, they get the opportunity, unless you consider that to them, its free exercise means the right to curb other religions. When they controlled Jerusalem and Hebron, they denied access to people of other faiths.

During the election, Americans were shocked at the black-supremacist and other prejudiced statements that poured out of the mouth of Obama's pastor. Obama claimed that during those 20 years, he never noticed or was away at the time. Never noticed? Obama's excuse is as shocking in its implications as Rev. Wright's animus.

Obama likens himself to FDR. I think he is more like Marc Antony at Julius Caesar's funeral. To paraphrase the ancient Roman, Obama might say, "I come not to praise Israel, but to bury it." If you prefer, substitute "America" for "Israel," but that would include domestic policy as well as foreign policy.


Terrorism is a major approach of jihad. The misconception that poverty causes jihad is demonstrably false. It may be an aggravating factor.

Many societies of impoverished people do not take to terrorism. Why so much among Muslims?

U.S. blacks had more legitimate grievances than the Muslims, whose jihad fabricates, rather than rectifies, grievances. Islamists spread false grievances for public relations. Their deliberately spread rumors get accepted by their people. Why are their people so credulous about rumors that keep getting disproved by political analysis? One such rumor is that "the Jews" plan to, and have attacked the al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount. That mosque never was attacked by Jews in the 90 years of such accusations of Jewish conspiracy.

If other governments and media were honest, courageous, and less prejudiced against Jews, they would have exposed those alleged grievances as false, long ago.

As time goes on, other societies take up terrorism, though not jihad. Jihadists seem to be forming a growing alliance with drug gangs, non-Muslim rogue states, and Communist-like groups in Latin America who, like them, despise Western civilization.

Jihad, which means "struggle," is religious in basis. It has taken on the connotation of struggle by violence. Muslims of all classes are religious, not just the poor. Wealthy Saudis and Iranians sponsor jihad. Saudi Arabia subsidizes radical mosques and madrassas, Islamic schools that indoctrinate students in jihad.

Education is no bulwark against extremism. Middle class engineers and doctors, embracing jihad, become terrorist technicians and leaders.

Who else becomes terrorists? Sudden terrorist syndrome indicates that moderate or nominal young Muslims can be radicalized swiftly. They believe what they are told by the radicals. Those schooled in the West apparently lack a sufficient grasp of general history to resist. They believe they are defending Islam, whereas they actually are attempting to impose the faith in its radical form on others, both Muslims and non-Muslims.

In the interest of jihad, Palestinian Arab women are at times accused of a relationship, even a minimal one, with unrelated men. As a result, they face dishonor and death. They therefore are encouraged to redeem their honor, in the jihadi spirit, by murdering Israelis. In some cases, Hamas has tricked the women into becoming compromised.

A Palestinian Arab who turns terrorist ensures his family's financial future. This is so because the Palestinian Authority, including Hamas, subsidizes terrorist families even after the death of the terrorist.

Having taken control of the autonomy left them by Israel, which had greatly improved their standard of living without improving their tendency to bigotry and violence, they brought down the standard of living. They spent money on war instead of on their people. Fatah leaders lavished funds on themselves. Arafat's commanders took a rake-off on their troops' pay. It is more true that certain terrorist movements generate poverty, than that poverty generates terrorism.


What in India's history, and in Narain Kataria's personal story, brought him to form an intellectual defense organization? For one thing, he has a master's degree in history from an Indian university, so he knows the long-term problem.

He narrated to me that Muslim invaders had been attacking India for a couple of hundred years. Muslim rule started in the 10th century. It took the invaders about 300 years to conquer Afghanistan, once part of India.

The clever invaders discovered that Indian armies depended on their king. Muslim forces concentrated their archers against the Indian king. Once he fell, his army disintegrated. The Muslims then were able to corner and slay the Hindu soldiers individually. The widows committed suicide, rather than let the Muslims violate them.

We have elaborate literary and epigraphic evidence from the works of renowned Islamic Historians and inscriptions on numerous mosques all over India which glorify the barbarism and savagery perpetrated on Hindus by Islamic rulers. In addition to thousands of temples vandalized, looted and desecrated by Muslims, Islamists also destroyed three magnificent Hindu temples built in the name of Lord Shiva at Benaras, Lord Rama at Ayodhya and Lord Krishna at Mathura, and erected lofty mosques over them to humiliate Hindus. (Lord Shiva, Lord Rama and Lord Krishna are considered as an incarnation of God in Hindu pantheon.)

Example from the cited source: "The Amir marched out toward Lamghan [in Afghanistan but then part of India], which is a city celebrated for its great strength and abounding wealth. He conquered it and set fire to the places in its vicinity which were inhabited by infidels, and demolishing idol temples, he established Islam in them. He marched and captured other cities and killed the polluted wretches, destroying the idolaters and gratifying the Musulmans." The sources elaborate upon the great wealth of India, before the Islamic conquest.

Kataria says, "Hindus want their temples back. The media does not report their sense of having been wronged, but instead, as wronging the Muslims."

[Muslims likewise took over St. Sophia Church, one of Christianity's primary cathedrals, in Constantinople. Muslim conquerors built a mosque over, and now also under, the Hebrew's Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Then they claim that no other religion's holy sites had been there.]

In 1947, the Hindus did not seek partition. The Muslims insisted on it by a 99% majority within their faith. Nevertheless, many stayed in India and doubled their population there. By contrast, Pakistan has been ousting non-Muslims. Thus the Muslims keep Pakistan exclusively Muslim but keep India not exclusively Hindu. "It is like having one's cake and eating it, too."

What India experienced, so has Israel. The first partition of Palestine led to an exclusively Arab state, Jordan, and another area, for a Jewish state but with a Muslim majority. The Muslims attempted to drive the Jews out of that other area, but in the effort, fled, leaving a Jewish majority.

Now the State Dept. and Arabs propose another partition into an exclusively Arab state under jihadist rule and a Jewish state having many restive Muslims. Restive, as when Arabs chant, "The Galilee is Arab!"

Kataria had lived in the one-third of India that the Muslims acquired during India's partition at the same time that the UN recommended partition of the remaining area of the Palestine Mandate after Jordan was emancipated from it. Kataria is from the Sind region. He was among the 10 million Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists that the Muslims of Pakistan, in collusion with the Pakistani army, drove into India. He feels fortunate not to be among the 10 million driven into the ground. The world took no notice.

According to Kataria, Hindus comprised 20% of Pakistan's population in 1947. Now it's 2%. "The Hindus suffered the brunt of the violence during partition, because, Kataria says, "Hindus were not thinking in terms of enemies, whereas the Muslims were organized to kill."

"Nearly two million Hindus are still held as slaves in southern Pakistan. In Bangladesh 20 million are missing."


U.S. military academies accept one cadet per foreign country. This year, however, the U.S. Air Force and Naval Academies have accepted three cadets from Lebanon, based on their academic record, physical training, and English proficiency. U.S. Ambassador Sison explains that the "military academies have a long tradition of excellence, helping train not only future American military leaders, but the future leaders of our friends and allies."

(IMRA, 5/20/10).

This is worse than ordinary sentimental naivete. "Friends and allies?" Lebanon has reverted to being a satellite of Syria, which the State Dept. had declared a terrorist state. Hizbullah has a veto over the government of Lebanon and is part of the ruling coalition. The Army of Lebanon is an ally of Hizbullah.

It is bad enough that U.S. universities train students from countries that promote jihad against us. It is at least as foolish for our military academies to train officers from those countries. The U.S. government does not know friend from foe. It mistakenly thinks that educating foreigners inculcates American values. American schools hardly inculcate American values in American students.

Texas is trying to revise the curriculum to do that. Instead of recognizing the problem that Texas is exploring, and working with Texas, critics focus only on where the proposals go beyond American values and into detailed political and religious opinions. The critics seem to demonstrate what Texas worries about, that many Americans are unacquainted with the value of American values.


Palestinian Authority (P.A.) head Abbas gave U.S. envoy Mitchell a list of alleged Israeli violations.

The list includes Israeli detention of suspected terrorists and defending Israeli territory from Gaza terrorists using human shields. As usual, Mitchell accepted the list without comment.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration keeps reiterating its dedication to Israeli national security. It could demonstrate any truth to that dedication, and be constructive about it, by taking the P.A. to task for acting as if terrorism were legitimate and defense against it were not (IMRA, 5/20/10).

Until the U.S. gets that concept straight, any talk of peace is as illusory as the Administration's alleged dedication to Israeli security.

What the P.A. calls Israeli "violations" turn out to be legitimate Israeli responses to P.A. violations. This is another example of the Muslim Arabs' notion of their entitlement to supremacy and non-believers' non-entitlement to self-defense. It also is an example of the false accusations and claims of the jihadist side. Those who accept such accusations and claims of naivete, indoctrination, and ignorance that typified Communist fellow travelers, whom even Lenin called "useful idiots."

U.S. silence about P.A. defamation of Israel, a defamation that proves attachment to terrorism and not peaceful coexistence becomes complicity with the defamation. It condones terrorism. It b brings into question whether the U.S. government wants peace or it still pursues the State Department's traditional anti-Zionism.


Haaretz and the Israeli Left are outraged that Israel barred Noam Chomsky. Chomsky called that Stalinist. Odd of him to use that epithet. Chomsky supported the Soviet regimes during the cold War, and especially spoke up for the Khmer Rouge.

Barring people is not a Soviet monopoly. For having politically incorrect opinions, the United Kingdom barred radio host Michael Savage, the anti-gay Rev. Fred Phelps, Dutch politician Geert Wilders, reggae star Jah Cure, TV star Martha Stewart, Islamist cleric Yusuf Qaradawi, and many Israelis, including right-wing activist Moshe Feiglin.

The U.S. barred journalist Robert Fisk, Greek professor John Milios, the Belarus acting President Lukashenko, an LSD advocate, etc..

Canada, Australia, Germany, Austria, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, and Slovakia have barred people. Venezuela banned Lech Walesa. Many Arab countries ban Israelis.

Very few of those who denounce Israel for barring Chomsky denounce the other countries for barring people (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/20/10, e-mail with links to each banning.)

Their double standard indicates that for them, the issue is not one of civil liberties. It is an opportunity to bash Israel.

Israel has plenty of resident leftists and Arabs who support the enemy. However, a country at war does not have to let in people who come to rally the enemy. That is not a matter of free speech but national defense.


Fox Business channel had the "Stossel Report" on Thursday, 8 p.m. on various aspects of freedom of speech and assembly. The first aspect was about freedom of speech for non-Muslims. The host was clear and sensible.

First guest was Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a remarkable woman. Originally from Somalia, she emigrated to the Netherlands, was elected to Parliament, renounced Islam, and had to flee for her life to America. She appreciates the freedom here, and advocates for it, but unfortunately still needs bodyguards.

She replied to the host with pinpoint, appropriate, and definitive answers. She was calm under challenge, lovely in personality, fair, and knowledgeable. Holland's loss was America's gain.

She already had encountered death threats for opposing Muslim oppression of women, in Holland. She does not consider it a Muslim man's right to murder his daughter, as if upholding his honor, or a right to beat his wife. Neither does she consider it a Muslim man's right to murder her because she objects. She explained that Islamic law considers it a right and duty to execute apostates such as herself. [Is it a religion of murder?]

Asked if exposing Islamic violence against women is a "provocation," Ms. Ali calls the fatwa against her life the provocation.

She helped film maker Van Gogh, who, like Geert Wilders, used Islamic verses to show religious approval of beating women. Even citing Islamic religious authority in favor of what she disapproves, did not exempt her from Muslim persecution. A Muslim who brutally murdered Van Gogh said he would have preferred to get her.

Her second and new book compares U.S. and Islamic values. It explains how to answer Muslim challenges to the American way. She is disappointed in American feminists for not fighting against "honor killings" and female mutilation carried on in the States.

There is censorship and self-censorship in the land of the free. For example, the usually bold TV show, "South Park," had a show that mocked, in bad taste and fantasy, the founders of several religions. It received nasty and threatening comments for an innocuous depiction of the founder of Islam, and not for depicting Buddha as a drug addict. Next time "South Park" displayed its cartoon, it covered Muhammad with a sign, "censored." It had given in to the threats.

Perhaps the station simply was showing respect? Then why not the first time and why not to the others? No, it censored itself out of fear of fanatics (5/20/10).

U.S. feminists may have become so left-wing, as to give priority to political correctness — the Left being increasingly allied with Islamists who are anti-liberal — that it condones the anti-feminism of Islam.

It isn't fair to American freedom and culture to let into our country people who want to deprive us of it.


Shocked father of detained businessman (AP/Anjum Naveed)

The Times Square bombing is having a ripple effect, as Pakistan detains a widening circle of people over it.

The government of Pakistan has now arrested an army officer and a businessman for helping introduce the bomber to trainers and for doing some of the planning.

Details are murky; denials are rife. The officer is called "disaffected." The network for associating trigger men with trainers is called "informal." The question is asked whether there are a few men in the Army who support terrorism (Jane Perlez, NY Times, 5/22, A1).

"A few?" My series on a New York Hindu leader indicates that Pakistan is dedicated to terrorism, though now it is beginning to defend itself from terrorism. Like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan encourages terrorism but does not want terrorists to turn against it.

Pakistan birth featured mass-murder and expulsion by the million. The Pakistani Army committed purges, and on a genocidal level, when trying to keep Bangladesh from independence. Muslim terrorism against Indians in Kashmir is so prevalent, it has to be sponsored by Pakistani intelligence. Pakistan has thousands of madrassas run by radicals who generate terrorists.

When the U.S. intervened indirectly in Afghanistan against the Soviets, it channeled money and weapons for the resistance through Pakistan, without monitoring it. Turns out that Pakistan delivered that aid to radical militias. Hence the rise of the Taliban. What does that tell you about Pakistan and terrorism?

Not all of the help for the Taliban, however, was to assist jihad. Pakistan wants to somewhat control bordering Afghanistan, and considers India its enemy. On the other hand, if Pakistan were not militantly Islamic, it would not need to consider India an enemy, regardless of who controls Kashmir.

The question is not whether the Pakistani Army has some disaffected individuals, but whether the pro-terrorist intelligence outfit determined policy and still determines it.

There was a credible report a few years ago, that when he was President, Musharraf told fellow Islamists that at times, he would have to act as if he opposed them, but he was one of them. This is like the secret meeting of Muslim government leaders with Arafat, that I reported some years ago, in which, as he was about to sign Olso's peace pledge, he reassured them that Oslo is part of his phased plan for the conquest of Israel. Like Janus, two-faced: one face to the West, another face to jihad.

Deception is part of the Islamist code. The U.S. needs to recognize this and assess more realistically. Then the U.S. might finally develop foreign policy in its own interest.


The "Stossel Report" described in my prior article, also featured publisher Ezra Levant, who ran afoul of Canada's law against hate speech. Should there be any law against "hate speech," and how reasonable is Canada's law?

Canada's law violates the key legal principle of clarity. The law is vague. Aside from a list of specifics prohibited, the law also bans opinions that "could expose someone to hatred." What does that mean? One cannot tell in advance. It is up to what euphemistically is called the Canadian Human Rights Commission to decide. The result: chilled freedom of speech.

The guest had published pictures of Muhammad that all the other publishers were afraid to. As a result, 15 government agents interrogated the publisher for a total of 900 days, he reports. He could have been fined and even jailed.

Eventually, they decided to drop the charges. They explained it on the basis of some formula involving where in the publication the items appeared and similar conditions that make no sense. They told him he is free to go, until "next time." That last, intimidating remark cast a shadow over his innocence and their devotion to democracy.

Note that he was not accused of defamation. The government was upholding a counterfeit right not to be offended, against the real right to express ones' views. This is censorship, 21st century. Mr. Stossel advises Americans that some other democracies are much less free than we are, but we have similar tendencies to guard against.

One such tendency is to monitor or repress political activity and speech. In one state, that thinks the paramount right is for people to know who is behind political activity, community activists have to read a 100-page instruction booklet and fill out a 14-page form. They are dropping out of activism. Neighbors cannot organize without government monitoring.

Where do universities stand on hate-law? Universities are supposed to be places of enlightenment, controversy, free exchange of views. One would suppose mistakenly, these days. The head of the University of Ottowa threatened Ann Coulter, in advance of her scheduled speech, there, with prosecution if it crossed this law's invisible or moving line. The speech was accompanied by mob violence against her. Stossel considers the censorship law a state extension of that mob agenda.

Stossel and guests drew a distinction among: (1) Ordinary speech and writing, that the Constitution protects from Congressional interference; and (2) Calling people to commit an imminent crime or committing fraud [or abetting terrorism]. Fraud may be sued. Inciting to riot may be prosecuted. Child pornography exploits innocent children. Otherwise, there should be no censorship (5/20/10).

A law against being offended is the dream of political correctness and a nightmare for everyone else. Different things offend different people. Groups may pretend to be offended, as a means of extorting concessions from others. Islamic organizations are driving to institute forms of Islamic law in democracies. They consider any statement of Islamic history and theology, however true, academic, and respectful, offensive if it disputes their version. Thus they find free speech offensive. It is a way to repress dissent. Yet at universities where Muslims riot and call Jews names, there is little or no prosecution. Then there is no principle involved. The universities are anti-democratic or cowardly. These laws are tools of totalitarians.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel BenAmi, May 22, 2010.

This was written by Rian Malan, writer, journalist and documentary-maker, who argues for living on the edge in South Africa. This appeared May 16, 2010 in the Observer (UK).


It's a sunny weekday afternoon in Jo'burg, and I am lunching with friends at an outdoor restaurant. The joint we're in was hit by armed robbers earlier this week. The newspapers on the table are full of hair-raising tribulations — our former police chief on trial for bribery, commuter buses shot up by murderous taxi bosses who won't tolerate competition, and elders of the African National Congress declining to sign the charge sheet against Julius Malema, the controversial youth leader who made global headlines the other day by endorsing Robert Mugabe, the cocky little psychopath who ruined neighbouring Zimbabwe.

Malema is now facing disciplinary charges, but no one in the ruling party is willing to take the risk of being identified as his accuser. This is worrying. Are racist demagogues winning the battle for control of the ANC? Are decent black men scared to take a stand lest they find themselves alongside whites, trussed up in the missionary cooking pot while Malema lights a fire beneath us? In a normal society, such questions would induce nervous breakdown, but my mates and I are laughing. We're sitting in the African sun, sharing jokes, and wondering how to con foreigners into coming here for the World Cup.

Once upon a time, South Africans imagined that this soccer extravaganza would make us all rich. Myself, I struggled to believe that half a million football tourists would cross the planet in the midst of a brutal recession to visit a country best known for its high crime rate. My neighbours scoffed, preferring to believe they would make a killing by renting out their homes. Alas. Bookings are running at about half the anticipated level. Would-be scalpers are stuck with tickets they can't even give away, and Fifa's gluttonous marketing arm has reportedly managed to lease only 1% of the luxury private boxes in our enormously expensive new stadia.

I am rather enjoying the resulting cries of pain. Fifa has made a monkey out of South Africa, encouraging us to spend billions we don't have on football stadiums we don't need in the absurd belief that we could recoup our losses by gouging football tourists whose willingness to come here was always in doubt. Our own leaders collaborated enthusiastically, partly because they relished the glory of presiding over an event of World Cup stature, but also because they were eager to participate in murky backroom deals that saw politically connected individuals reaping obscene profits on taxpayer-funded construction contracts. Now we're all saddled by debts it will take generations to pay off. I'm so riled that part of me would be gratified if the World Cup were a complete failure.

But South Africa is a complicated country, and there's always another side of the story. As I write, a certain Mrs Gladys Dladla is ironing clothes in my kitchen. Gladys is an old-school Zulu matriarch, struggling heroically to maintain a huge family on her meagre earnings as my once-a-week char. She lacks the wherewithal to bribe officials who control access to state housing, so she's lived in a tin shack for 16 years. In recent weeks, getting to work has become a frightening ordeal thanks to renewed tensions between police and the aforementioned taxi thugs. Gladys's life seems entirely miserable, but she always shows up on time, chattering cheerfully about church and her hope that God and the ancestral spirits will soon guide us to victory in the national lottery. Gladys and I have a little syndicate going.

The World Cup is an event of huge symbolic importance to Mrs Dladla. In the next several weeks, oily ANC politicians will attempt to convince you that this tournament is a tribute to their heroic victory over apartheid and associated triumphs of the human spirit. Hm. For people like Gladys, the longing for success is actually rooted in despair. They're so tired of being losers and also-rans, trapped at the bottom of a society that constantly threatens to degenerate into just another African basket case. Their dream was that in June 2010 the world's eyes would descend on us, and at last find something to admire.

Mrs Dladla looks on these things with enormous pride. She feels that their glory reflects on her directly, and besides, there's always the hope that football tourism might generate jobs for her unemployed offspring. She was a great supporter of short-lived plans to turn my rambling old home into a cheap doss house for football hooligans. In the end, I baulked at paying tribute to Fifa, whose lawyers crushed all attempts to market World Cup lodgings through any channels other than their own. Just as well, because our doss house would most likely have failed anyway.

So now we stand before you with clean hands. We have nothing to gain from the World Cup but the pleasure of your company, so it would be nice if you changed your minds about coming. Please! We've almost bankrupted ourselves in our determination to stage a tournament that runs like clockwork. And if it doesn't — you can have a chuckle at our expense. Last week's newspapers reported a state of abject unreadiness among the pom-pom girls scheduled to perform at the opening ceremony. A day or two later, President Jacob Zuma informed America that we have the laziest and most useless civil service on the planet. Elsewhere such an admission would have precipitated the government's downfall. Here, the story was relegated to page five.

I struggle to see how anyone can resist a country where such things happen. South Africa is amazing! At any given moment, all possible futures seem entirely plausible. We are winning, we are losing. We are progressing even as we hurtle backwards. Every day brings momentous exhilarations and dumbfounding setbacks, and the sun shines brightly even in winter. Throw in the heady proximity of Mandela and Beckham, and you're almost guaranteed a splendid time.

As for crime, well, yes, crime is a threat, but our police have been given orders to smash anyone who so much as touches a hair on any football fan's head. If you book now, you'll arrive just in time to catch a last glimpse of our fading rainbow, and the first stirrings of our next upheaval.

If that sounds alarming, I wouldn't worry. There is much to be said for living on the edge, in a place shot through with "heartspace and the danger of beauty", as the Boer poet Breytenbach once phrased it. Britain seems pallid in comparison. We are told that your election was an event of epochal significance, but from Jo'burg, it looked boring — three nice white men with almost identical opinions jostling for space on the same centrist pinhead. As for the prospect of a hung parliament... you call that a crisis? Good God. We have far worse, every day, before breakfast. And we're still laughing. Better get here before we stop.

Contact Israel BenAmi at farmer@012.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 22, 2010.

Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat)

Last Wednesday night, Nabil Shaath, a member of the Fatah Central Committee and a close associate of PA president Mahmoud Abbas, spoke at a conference in Ramallah, at which he said:

"There is a need to create and endorse new struggling tools, such as the popular resistance, and to increase our efforts in the international arena to isolate and punish Israel, prevent it from deepening its relationship with the European Union and attempt to expel it from the United Nations."

By Thursday, according to news reports, our government was "furious," and denouncing Shaath's words.

So what do we learn from the Friday report on this in the JPost by Khaled Abu Toameh and Herb Keinon? That we will be raising this with Mitchell — just as, on Thursday, we had raised the issue of the PA attempting (unsuccessfully) to block our admittance into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.


Beyond exasperating. Beyond comprehensible.

Why are we continuing with this ridiculous game-playing called "proximity talks" if our ostensible partner, which claims to seek establishment of a state at our side that will live in peace with us, is trying to destroy us?

Where is our national dignity? Our instinct for national self-preservation? Why aren't we calling a halt, saying boldly and publicly that we have no one to negotiate with in good faith?

You don't suppose Netanyahu's fear of displeasing Obama has anything to do with it, do you? Or Barak's concern that the international community might not like us?


Perhaps there's one "redeeming" element here. If we "must" continue these talks, at least the PA behavior should stiffen backs of our government officials somewhat and make it easier to refuse more concessions. You would think so, would you not? When they're acting this way, we should do more?

After all, Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon (Likud) on Thursday evening, speaking at a celebration to mark the completion of a small new neighborhood in Maon, in the South Hebron Hills, insisted that we would start building after the freeze ended in September:

"We will renew building after the moratorium ends. We will not evacuate settlements. We will not move Jews. We will not sacrifice Jews from any place in Israel.

"The settlements have never been a stumbling block to peace. The absence of that peace is for reasons that are not connected to us. Our neighbors do not recognize the right of Jews to their land. They do not recognize the right of Israel to exist as a national homeland for the Jewish people."


But, alas, it turns out that this statement from Ya'alon was only Ya'alon speaking — I seriously doubt that he was speaking for the government.

For, also on Thursday, after Prime Minister Netanyahu (who DOES speak for his government) had met with Mitchell, his office released a statement regarding what had been discussed. And, incredibly, one of the things it is said they talked about in the first part of the meeting was "gestures Israel might make to the Palestinians."

Nah! That can't be. But apparently it is.

Let's get the chronology straight here: This discussion took place after Shaath had made his speech and our government was reportedly "fuming." After this, in a talk with Mitchell, Netanyahu was willing to discuss possible gestures we might make to the bums who want to destroy us.

If he won't quit the talks, could he not at least say, "Nothing. Zero. Effes. I will not even consider a single gesture, unless and until they clean up their act"?

Apparently not. I am ashamed, on behalf of Israel.


There is a great deal of analysis in the media regarding a turn-around on the part of Obama, who is doing a mea culpa and admitting he handled Israel badly at the start of his efforts to promote peace. He's learned now, he and his flunkies are telling Congresspersons, Jewish leaders and even some rabbis. Things are different.

Well, I don't buy it for a second. And I don't trust Obama a bit more now than I ever did. That would make me very foolish indeed, although I imagine many will.

I believe that Obama is playing it the way he thinks will work. It is being said that the new, kinder Obama is what convinced Israel to enter those talks. But if he suddenly decides again that "throwing Israel under the bus" (Melanie Phillips' words) is the way to go, he'll revert back to where he was. Because his heart is not with us and his intentions towards us haven't changed. Just wait until it is September, and he wants us to continue that freeze in building.

One sure way to gauge Obama's intent is to note that while he is now "nicer" to Israel, he has not come down tougher on the PA in any visible way. It's obvious that PA leaders are still counting on him, and that he hasn't sent Mitchell to tell them, enough of this garbage already, get real. Mitchell met with PA officials in Ramallah on Wednesday and Wednesday night Shaath gave his talk.

It's extremely likely that this "nicer" Obama has something to do with why Netanyahu won't quit the talks now, when he should. And is even willing to discuss "possible gestures."

Those of a certain age and American cultural background will remember these words: "What a revolting development this is."


Just to show you how revolting it all really is: After Mitchell met with Abbas this past week, Khaled Abu Toameh reported that Abbas complained about Israeli "provocations."

Abu Toameh cited one "senior Israeli official," who said Jerusalem hoped the Palestinians were not looking for an excuse to scuttle the talks. "We want this process to succeed."

How's that again? They full well KNOW it won't succeed.


Rahm Emanuel, a key Obama aide, and most definitely no friend to Israel, has arrived here on a private visit, during the course of which his son will celebrate his bar mitzvah. Ain't that great?


We end Shabbat with the traditional greeting, Shavua tov, good week. And so will I end it here. Perhaps in my next post there will be something encouraging to report.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 21, 2010.


Jaish Al-Islam (Army of Islam) leader Omer Al-Ansari gave Ma'an News an exclusive interview. He said that his Salafist ideology is close to that of al-Qaeda and Hamas, and makes alliances with some other jihadist organizations, but his organization has its own methods and other differences. His main criticism of Hamas is that it is too modern, having found reasons to restrain its brigades from immediate, all out war with Israel.

Operating clandestinely and as a rival to Hamas, Al-Ansari acknowledged, from his hideout, that most of his organization's founders, leaders, and scholars are dead or imprisoned. Nevertheless, the organization soldiers on.

Although Al-Ansari did not admit that his organization is responsible for some explosions in Gaza, he said it serves to create security chaos. It causes Hamas not to seem fully in charge. Nevertheless, he complained that Hamas exploits the security chaos to declare martial law and crack down on his organization.

Would the Salafists make a truce with Israel? Yes, but only if Israel conceded their immediate demands on prisoners and control over the Territories and the jointly-claimed holy sites.

He distinguished between Christians who drink and whore, and Christians who do not. He said that the Salafists would expel the former and retain the latter. [His contemptible disrespect also applies to many Muslims, who do not follow his extreme view.]

Why do many Muslims hate Christians? Al-Ansari explained that churches give them some subsidy that Muslims do not get. [Is that a reason to hate?]

When asked if Salafism believes in change by force, Al-Ansari replied that there is no such thing as an extremist wing in Islam, all versions are part of the whole. His view is like the Christian view of the Trinity, each of three components independent and all three united (IMRA, 5/19/10).


Israel has decided to bar the flotilla, carrying hundreds of "peace activists" and humanitarian goods, attempting to break the partial blockade of Gaza. Israel's Foreign Ministry advised the governments of the countries from which the various ships disembarked.

The Defense Minister has alerted the Israeli Navy to intercept the flotilla in the open sea off Gaza. Last June, another blockade-running ship was towed into an Israeli port.

As far as humanitarian goods are concerned, Israel had let into the Gaza Strip 14,000 tons of it, last week. The flow has gone on and on.

Meanwhile, with foreign help, Gaza port is being deepened and improved, to receive more ships (IMRA, 5/20/10).

"Peace activists" has become a euphemism for abettors of war. They do not urge Hamas to abandon terrorism, which it carries out in an aggressive manner. They do not demand an end to Hamas holy war. They fail to criticize Hamas and Fatah for their ideology of conquering all of Israel. They do not suggest that next time there is war there, Israel be encouraged to eradicate Hamas, to end the terrorism and future wars. They have no solution for ending the war.

All the efforts of those who call themselves "peace activists" are to weaken Israeli defense. When non-Muslims are less able to defend themselves from Islamic holy war, radical Muslims are more likely to launch the war. What would you expect?

Breaking the partial blockade would enable Hamas to bring in heavier weapons and make harsher war. Some of the "peace activists" probably are wolves in sheep's clothing, who want that. Some are anti-Zionists and antisemites. The rest are naïve, assisting the most hate-filled, oppressive people at complete odds with those naive activists' liberal ideals. Perversion gives liberalism a bad name.

A deeper port would enable the arrival of bigger freighters laden with tanks and artillery. Think Hamas wouldn't do it? What wouldn't Hamas do, that organization that risks its own civilians and murders enemy civilians, under its concept of a god that craves human sacrifice and in their view really is far from merciful? When Israel permitted Arafat a helicopter and PLO VIPs to drive across borders without being inspected, they abused the privilege to smuggle in weapons. That kind of smuggling having limited potential, Arafat then tried to build a port and airport, for heavier duty smuggling. The "peace activists" are supporting his successors' efforts.

Remember when they claimed there was a humanitarian crisis, but no evidence of it?

Hasstem Moussa, Head of Hamas in Gaza (AP/Hatem Moussa)

Photographs of Arabs in Gaza show full bellies, compared with photographs of Sudanese refugees with swollen bellies.


Senior Fatah official Nabil Shaath wants the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) working to loosen Israel's ties with Europe and expel it from the UN. He says that the Holocaust helped "the Jews" strengthen ties with important European states.

He has little hope expectation that negotiations between the P.A. and Israel will resolve the conflict. He suggests monitoring Israel's violations and informing the U.S. of them (IMRA, 5/20/10).

I thought there was no Holocaust. Who can keep track of anti-Jewish inanities?

The Holocaust killed almost half the Jews in the world, removing their potential new cultural and scientific enhancements to whole European countries. Then came a period when some Europeans felt contrite but others refused to relinquish their Holocaust spoils. Now many Europeans have resumed their bigotry against Jews while defending bigoted jihadists in the name of the humanism that those jihadists are destroying. They call that liberalism.

Here is a terrorist organization, Fatah, based on murder and deceit, finding the UN enough of a cesspool of corruption, bigotry, and heartlessness, so it feels encouraged to influence it to expel a scapegoated member. All decent countries should resign membership. First they must rescind the Security Council power to issue binding orders on countries. The Security Council is too unreliable to be entrusted such power.

Many binding orders, however, are ignored by malefactors. Supposedly binding Security Council resolutions and signed IAEA treaty provisions did not hold Saddam, N. Korea, Iran, and Syria-Hizbullah. Let Mr. Shaath suggest expelling N. Korea, Iran, and Syria and Lebanon from the UN. He won't. What jihadists say to us should not be taken as serious ethical principle. When their ideology endorses deception and violence, they say and do anything for their side. Do not expect to hear consistency from their mouths.

By incitement to hate-filled violence, the P.A. has been violating all its agreements with Israel and the U.S.. The U.S. has ignored those violations, reflecting its own bias and fear of admitting policy failure. P.A. encouragement of violence and its diplomacy against Israel are strange ways of making peace, wouldn't you say?

What violations does Shaath think Israel is committing? Doesn't say. Usually, the Arabs call Israeli self-defense aggression, and Arab aggression self-defense. The Arabs also call a violation Israel doing something not mentioned in what Israel agreed to, but a condition that the Arabs would like it to agree to. The Arab side uses a topsy-turvy logic foreign to the Western mind, though in the decline of Western civilization, inconsistency and hysteria are catching on.


Three dozen Jewish Democratic Members of Congress met for 1 and a half hours with President Obama, to urge more public support for Israel.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) heard Obama express "his absolute determination that Iran would not achieve a nuclear bomb," and added that the President was "genuinely interested in our advice."

"Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ) noted Republican Party efforts 'to distort President Obama's positions on Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.' He called Obama the "best president on U.S.-Israel military and intelligence cooperation in American history." As evidence of support for Israel's military, Obama cited his offer of an additional $205 million to subsidize Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile defense. The legislators appreciated that (IMRA, 5/20/10).

Americans have on strange way of: contempt for politicians, electing one as President, disliking his policies, and then being awed by his presence and accepting his rationalizations. However, this group came as partisans and made a partisan political statement. That reduces their credibility. Reading both the Wall St. Journal and the New York Times, I find Republic analysis of Obama's foreign policy logical and Obama's defense of it a distortion of reality.

In fact, Rep. Rothman distorts the Muslim-Israel conflict that most Muslim governments have with Israel into a narrow "Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The broader term shows the conflict's religious basis, like global jihad in general. The narrower term makes it seem territorial, and shows either political bias or lack of understanding.

Yes, the Obama administration keeps expressing determination that Iran not develop a nuclear bomb, but it wasted time waiting for engagement that Iran spurned, wasted time trying to put the onus on Israel for being unable to deal with Iran, wasted still more time calling for pinprick sanctions, ruled out U.S. military action, took steps to thwart Israeli military action, and put out feelers about living with a nuclear-armed Iran. Is Obama determined to let Iran develop a nuclear bomb?

Those certainly are not examples of U.S. cooperation with Israel on military and intelligence matters. As for the Iron Dome, its wastes money and defends little. Thanks but no thanks.


Israel's Defense Minister Barack transferred land long zoned for Jewish towns in Judea-Samaria to the Arab city of Rawabi, for a highway to it. The city would start with room for 25,000 people and would have an option to accommodate another 15,000. Many Arabs build luxurious houses for themselves. At Rawabi, construction is going on every day, all day. Thus while Barak freezes Jewish construction, he heats up Arab construction. [Anti-Zionists accuse Israel of discriminating against Arabs.]

The construction of Rawabi poses environmental problems for the surrounding area. Residents of a nearby Jewish town, Ateret residents, asked about Rawabi's trash, sewage, transportation, and security. "Arab sewage is already flowing uncontrolled in nearby Haramiye," one Ateret man said, "so I want to know how an entire city will be dealt with." (Arutz-7, 5/20/10).

Earlier articles reported that this Rawabi is the product of a foreign plan to establish Arab facts on the ground, in anticipation of negotiations, while those same foreigners demand that Israel not build housing, lest that influence negotiations.

The government of Israel reflects the ideology of its chief leaders, not Judaism, whose system of law is unused in its courts. Judaism is like a three-legged stool, resting on Torah, People, and Land. Secular Zionism, which perhaps PM Netanyahu subscribes to, at best, lacks the first pillar. Therefore, its stool wobbles on the leg of Land. Appeasement, which Defense Min. Barak subscribes to, has no pillars, and wobbles on Torah, People, and Land. Without ideological security, there is little national allegiance and even less national security. Ultimately, you can see, secular Zionism is inferior to religious Zionism in what it can maintain. As for Israeli courts, which reflect Barak's ideology, they are citadels of injustice, divorced as they are from Jewish values in a state besieged by barbaric values seeking to destroy Judaism and the Jewish people, and to seize the Land of Israel.

Zionism focuses on the Land of Israel. It has no designs on other countries. It would not commit aggression to incorporate Jordan, which is part of the Land of Israel. Judaism desires to practice its own faith and especially in it own homeland, and, unlike its enemies, not to destroy or dominate others.

(Here is a link to this article
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY- Israel-Conflict-Examiner~y2010m5d21- Israel-transfers-Jewish-towns-land-to-Arabs)


When Israel expelled the Jews from Gaza, PM Sharon promised them compensation and new housing. Jews formerly from Netzarim have been waiting in tiny caravans for five years for permanent housing. Just when they finally received government approval to build permanent houses in Ariel, PM Netanyahu imposed an official freeze on Jewish, and only Jewish, construction in Judea-Samaria.

Barak's "land snatch" may be part of rumored plans to change the category of some Judea-Samaria land from Area C, under total Israeli control, to Area B, under Palestinian Authority (P.A.) civilian control or to Area A, under P.A. military control.

Members of Knesset appealed to Netanyahu and Defense Min. Barak to make an exception for the few dozen Netzarim Jews. Months pass, without response (Arutz-7, 5/20/10).

One supposes that is what people mean by "Israel's 'vibrant' democracy." Seems more like heartless leftwing and appeasement ideology.


Cultured and refined, Narain Kataria devotes his life to protecting freedom from the anti-culture and largely unrefined jihadists. Eleven years ago, Mr. Kataria founded the non-profit, Indian American Intellectuals Forum, over which he presides for the last 7 years, in New York. The Forum exists to strengthen friendship between the country of his birth and this country of treasured freedom.

Mr. Kataria also is a director of Hindu Human Rights Watch, a watchdog for Hindu security globally. He is a founding member of the Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam [introduced in these pages a year ago and whose three rallies were reported here]. The Coalition invites in all faiths, races, and nationalities to defend liberty and civilization.

Thus the Hindu principle of live-and-let-live counters the Radical Muslim principle of live Muslim or die. Hindus do not forcibly convert, do not organize themselves under a religious hierarchy, and Kataria avers, can see others' pain.

"Hindus consider the world as a family," Kataria explains. "Hindus never sent expeditions out to loot, murder, and dominate." By contrast, alien religions did invade India for such purposes and by such means, "unleashing a reign of terror and forcibly subjugating the people for 600-700 years."

It was the British who emphasized a distinction between Hindus and Buddhists. Hindus feel a basic unity with Buddhists — Buddha was Indian. I have seen Kataria introduce a Sikh priest as "our elder brother." Kataria expressed gratitude to the Sikhs, whose martial skills and interests defended Hindus from aggressive Islam.

As examples of Indian tolerance and understanding of others' problems, he cites the welcome given to hundreds of thousands of Tibetans driven out by China and to Parsis driven out of Iran by Islamists. India welcomes refugees without conditions. Kataria attests that India never persecuted Jews.

The Indian American Intellectuals' Forum holds conferences to help people understand who and what guide international terrorism. The Intellectuals' Forum had sent their representatives to present a Hindu perspective at anti-terrorism conferences organized by Intelligence Summit in Florida and by America's Truth Forum in Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas. Every year Intellectuals' Forum organizes Hindu Unity Day in New York and invites important Indian leaders to speak on that occasion.

The Intellectuals' Forum supports like minded groups, such as the New York chapter of Act For America. Twice its members visited the State Dept. The delegation informed the State Dept. that Pakistan misused U.S. aid to build an aggressive force against India. They urged the U.S. to declare Pakistan a terrorist state, disarm its nuclear weapons, and divide Pakistan into its four major ethnic areas.

Splitting up Pakistan is not as Quixotic as it seems. The Baluchis and other major groups in Pakistan do not want to be dominated as they are by the Punjabis.

When Bangladesh in eastern Pakistan seceded, the Pakistani army began a massive slaughter of Bangladeshis, including 2.5 million Hindus and .5 million Muslims. India's army arrested and jailed 90,000 Pakistani soldiers and forced the Pakistani army out. Who knows how many more millions India thereby saved! That was before Pakistan developed nuclear weapons.

State Dept. officials heard the delegation out, but told them that nothing they would say could sway the U.S. from its alliance with Pakistan. The U.S. paid for that stubbornness, as another article will show.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, May 21, 2010.

This was written by Michael J. Totten and it is archived at
www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/ index.php/totten/297276


John Brennan, deputy national security adviser for homeland security, has come up with a new way to waste the foreign-policy establishment's time — locate the so-called "moderate elements" within Hezbollah and somehow promote them.

"There is [sic] certainly the elements of Hezbollah that are truly a concern to us what [sic] they're doing," he said. "And what we need to do is to [sic] find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements."

There are no moderates within Hezbollah, at least not any who stand a chance of changing Hezbollah's behavior. Sure, the terrorist militia has sent a handful of its members to parliament, as Brennan says, and once in a while they sound more reasonable than its secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, but these people are employees. They don't make policy.

If you want to catch a glimpse of Hezbollah's org chart, just rent a car in Beirut and drive south. You'll see billboards and posters all over the place in the areas Hezbollah controls. Some show the portraits of "martyrs" killed in battle with Israel. Others show the mug shots of Hezbollah's leadership, most prominently Nasrallah and his deceased military commander, truck bomber, and airplane hijacker Imad Mugniyeh. Alongside the pictures of Hezbollah's leaders, you'll also see Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the two "supreme guides" of the Islamic Republic regime in Iran.

It's obvious, if you know who and what you're looking at, that Hezbollah is still subservient to Khamenei. His face is almost as ubiquitous as that of Nasrallah and the deceased faqih Khomeini himself. Hezbollah's state-within-a-state doesn't even look like it's in Lebanon. It looks like, and effectively is, an Iranian satellite. Iran's heads of state appear everywhere down there, while Lebanon's heads of state are personae non grata.

I've met those you might call moderate supporters of Hezbollah, Lebanese citizens who believe Hezbollah is there to defend Lebanon from Israel rather than to attack — which is not at all what anyone at the top thinks. Even if second-tier leaders were less belligerent, it wouldn't matter. The organization takes its order from Tehran. Hezbollah won't change until its masters change in Iran, and the U.S. is no more able to "build up" any imagined moderates within its ranks than it is able to replace Khamenei's hated dictatorship with the Green Revolution.

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 David Wilder, May 21, 2010.

A few days ago I discovered the American way. True, I grew up in the states, (a long time ago), and knew and heard about the great American dream. But the authentic 'American Way' crossed my path only earlier this week.

A friend of mine gave me a short article published in a New York newspaper, headlined, "Mosque Going Up in NYC Building Damaged on 9/11." It didn't take too long to discover that this building adjacent to the Twin Towers, was making news, big time. The thirteen story mosque, a $100 million dollar project, is being called the Cordoba initiative.

Before continuing, it should be made very clear the exact significance of this name. Do you remember Cordoba? Here in Hebron we also have a Cordoba, — the Cordoba Girls School, across from Beit Hadassah (teaching sweet little innocents how to win a place in the next world by killing Jews). What is the connection between the Cordoba initiative in New York and the Cordoba girl's school in Hebron, you ask!? Very simple.

Cordoba was, for about 500 years, the capital of Islamic Spain. According to Wikipedia, "in the Middle Ages it was a capital of an Islamic caliphate and one of the largest cities in the world."

What is the best way to keep such memories alive? Of course, to name important places after them. Why keep the memory alive. Because Islam believes that this city, Cordoba, still belongs to them.

Following the attack on Spanish trains in 1994 in Madrid, an Al-Qaeda associate, Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri, who took 'credit' for the bombings, wrote, ""This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader..." [1] In other words, there are still Islamic groups who blame Spain for the fall of Cordoba and the Caliphate hundreds of years ago.

As a result, mosques and schools are named, not only in memory of Cordoba, but as a means to maintain that memory in expectation of future conquest. And now New York will have the great honor, adjacent to the site of the most horrific crime in the United States, to conserve the name of those who perpetrated it.

This has, of course, stirred great debate in the land of the free. But now, let's jump one step further, to mosque number two.

That's right. A second mosque is being planned in the same vicinity.

"FOX News has learned that an effort to place a second mosque close to the hallowed site in New York City is in its advanced stages.

The Masjid Mosque has raised $8.5 million and is seeking an additional $2.5 million to begin construction. While it apparently has not settled on a final location, it has told donors it plans to build very close to where 3,000 people were killed in the September 11 terror attacks.

In fact, the website appealing for donations boldly states that it plans to "build the 'House of Allah' next to the World Trade Center. Help us raise the flag of 'LA ILLAH ILLA ALLAH' in downtown Manhattan." [2].

All in the name of freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to kill anyone and everyone who doesn't think like you.

But New Yorkers shouldn't feel bad. Jerusalem too, the holiest city in the world, is also being maligned. Not only by extremist Islam, but from the highest echelons of America the Beautiful.

Following 9/11, President George W Bush initiated the Homeland Security act and added Homeland Security to his cabinet. This organization's job is to protect the United States from terror such as struck nine years ago, and has almost struck again, numerous times.

Of course, there are many ways to an end, to prevent such atrocities. Bush had his ways. America, 2010 has changed.

Today's Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security is a wonderful fellow named John O. Brennan. Johnny grew up in my old haunting grounds, in New Jersey. He seems overly suitable for his position, having dealt with counterterrorism for many years. However, be it his own initiative, or that of his boss, Brennan seems to have developed a unique approach to fighting Islam. That is, if you can't beat them, join them.

In a youtube video [3], Johnny-Boy says, and I quote, (at 1:00) "and in all my travels, the city I have come to love most is al-kuds, Jerusalem."

click here.

Yes I have to admit, he does mention Jerusalem, after al-kuds. What is al-kuds? That's what Arabs call Jerusalem — 'the holy.' In the words and thoughts of a senior presidential advisor, one of the top anti-terror officials in 'Oh Say can you See,' Jerusalem is, first and foremost, al-kuds.

Our Arab, Islamic neighbors have names for all Jewish places. It makes no difference that Jerusalem was Jerusalem thousands of years prior to the advent of Islam. It is, according to JohnO al-kuds. A modern example: Tel Aviv, a hundred and fifty years ago still sand dunes, is called, on a map of palestine, Tell ar rabbee. And again, back in time, Hebron, al khalil. Just as Eretz Yisrael — Israel — is palestine.

I guess I shouldn't feel bad. After all, Washington DC Imam Abdul Alim Musa wants to establish an "Islamic State of North America no later than 2050".[4]

With good guys like Brennan, and precedents such as NY city mosques next to the late twin towers, and presidents like Hussein Abu Bama, who knows?

I know. Abu Bama will be the caliph, and Washington DC the capital. But the city's name will be changed. It will no longer be called Washington DC, rather Al-KooKoo.


[1] "Al Qaeda Claims Credit for Madrid Blasts"

[2]  "Muslims in NYC Planning to Build Second, Smaller Mosque Near Ground Zero"
www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/17/muslims-nyc-planning- build-second-smaller-mosque-near-ground-zero/?test=latestnews

[3]  "Top Obama Officials Now Calling Jerusalem 'Al-Quds'"

[4] "DC Imam wants to establish an 'Islamic State of North America no later than 2050'"
www.jihadwatch.org/2007/11/dc-imam-wants-to-establish- an-islamic-state-of-north-america-no-later-than-2050.html


David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.

To Go To Top

Posted by Never Again is Now, May 20, 2010.

Please SIGN the Declaration, below.

Thousands of signatures have already been collected!


We will petition Congress to take the necessary steps to ensure that the words of the above Declaration are adopted as the new Foreign Policy of the United States towards Israel.

Rev. Dr. John Lupoli, President of the World Council of Independent Christian Churches (www.wcicc.org), representing 380,000 churches and 44 million congregants in 80 countries, will be reading the Jewish People's Declaration of Independence inside the United Nations later this year and will be sending a copy of it to every UN ambassador.

By signing the Declaration, you will be taking a crucial step in guaranteeing the safety of Israel and the preservation of America's Core Values. After signing, please forward this email to everyone on your Email, Facebook and Twitter lists, and ask the recipients to do the same. Thank you.

Six Million Voices Must be Heard!!!

Contact Never Again Is Now at neveragainisnow@live.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Isaac, May 20, 2010.

Welcome to ShmuelKatz.com!

Our site is dedicated to continuing the work of Shmuel Katz (December 9, 1914 - May 9, 2008), the most clear-sighted political thinker Israel has ever produced.

Shmuel Katz was a historic figure who participated in many of the events that led to the creation of the State of Israel. He served as member of Knesset (1949-1951), became advisor to Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and played an instrumental role in the establishment of Americans for A Safe Israel, an American offshoot of the Land of Israel Movement. He was also a noted biographer and historian

The Web site will contain a wealth of information. The archive already houses nearly two hundred articles, as well as rare pamphlets, all of which are searchable by keyword. These articles are a treasure trove of political insight and a historic record. If you take the time to read them, you will be richly rewarded, gaining a knowledge superior to 99% of those who claim the title 'expert' in Israel's affairs.

The site's "Lessons for Today" section will show how Katz's advice is applicable to the current crisis. You can view our latest entry below. It is also viewable at http://shmuelkatz.com/wordpress_cp/

I hope you enjoy and benefit from ShmuelKatz.com. If you have questions or comments, please reach me at David_Isaac@shmuelkatz.com.

David Isaac


What would Shmuel say to the Obama administration's plan to convene an international conference on achieving Mideast peace should direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs fail to reach a breakthrough by the fall?

In "The Looming Danger of Annapolis," (November 22, 2007) written a year-and-a-half before his death, Katz wrote, "The Jewish state is in greater danger than anytime since the 1948 War of Independence." The danger wasn't Arab violence, but the Annapolis conference, "conceived and promoted with almost frenetic enthusiasm by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice."

Katz described the lopsidedness of the approaching conference, where on one side stood delegates from the Arab states, the Palestinian Authority, and the Mideast Quartet — the U.S., UN, European Union and Russia — all "committed to the diminution of Israel and some, frankly, to her consequent extinction" — and on the other side, an Israeli delegation led by the irresponsible and incompetent Ehud Olmert.

Fortunately, the Annapolis conference did not live up to its hype and ended more as news brief than banner headline. But if at first you don't succeed, try, try again and the Obama administration has revived the idea of an international summit, and it is likely to do a better job applying pressure against Israel than did the Bush administration, if for no other reason than that this president believes more in the cause.

According to Haaretz, "The officials said the conference would be run by the Quartet of Middle East peacemakers — the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia — in a bid to forge a united global front for creating a Palestinian state."

And so the trap is set.

If Netanyahu permits it, Israel will find itself engaged in direct talks with the PA's Mahmoud Abbas for a "two-state solution." These talks will fail. Israel will not agree to forfeit all of Judea, Samaria, Gaza and East Jerusalem while allowing an influx of millions of Arab "refugees". Abbas will agree to nothing less. What incentive has he to do so? Were he agree to less, he would be subject to violent attacks from Hamas. By simply waiting, he'll gain what he wants anyway, with the "world" handing it to him a few months later — and offering him additional cover against attacks from his rivals (If the proposals fall short, he can easily distance himelf from them by saying they're the summit's proposals and not his own).

As for Israel? Should it go along with these negotiations and wind up at that international conference, it will find the entire world arrayed against it — and unlike Iran which has China and Russia to run interference — there will be no one to take her side. Internationally isolated, divided from within, Israel will sit in a trap from which it will not easily break out.

What would Shmuel say? "Bring the phony negotiations to an end. Prevent the conference from happening." Though the situation appears bleak, there is hope. First, Israel must change its behavior. It has been given many opportunities to exit the talks, none of which it seized upon. Only last week, Israel complained of PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad lobbying the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) against admitting Israel into the organization, accusing it of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead. This is incitement, an activity the PA was explicitly censored from doing by President Obama. Here, Israel could have said the PA is clearly not serious. It can't fulfill even the miminal demands placed upon it and so we are putting a stop to talks. Israel would explain why the entire peace process is, and always has been, a fraud. Netanyahu has the eloquence, even the underlying conviction. Let him use it on Israel's behalf.

But turning the tide of world opinion is not a job for one man. Shmuel was a tremendous advocate for a program of information to present Israel's case to the world. (In our video section you can see an interview of Shmuel discussing his idea for a Ministry of Information.) Imagine how much better off Israel would be were it not sunk continuously in a defensive posture, but, instead, capable of boldly answering the continual lies of its enemies. As Shmuel wrote in "Countering Propaganda" (Sept. 26, 1984):

"Israel is confronted in the West not just by hostile criticism but by a many-faceted propaganda-war machine with long-range objectives, operating at every level of society.

"Israeli governments have evidently not come to grips also with the nature of the war. It is not designed to achieve a change in this or the other policy of the Israeli government. Its aim is to put an end to the Zionist entity, to delegitimize Israel — by the assertion, endlessly repeated, that the Jewish people has no right to Palestine, and the Jewish State has no right to exist at all, that the land is Arab territory usurped by the Zionists with the aid of the imperialists.

"This propaganda is a powerful auxiliary to the aim of the physical elimination of Israel. It provides the infrastructure of justification in the mind of a brain-washed public for the launching of a future war to achieve that unchanging annihilatory purpose."

The answer is for Israel to have a propaganda machine of her own. In "A Crying Need" (Aug. 6, 1982), he wrote:

"HAD ISRAEL such a ministry, the first drastic change would be the presence at the cabinet table of the minister absolutely dedicated to the task of information. His battles would never end as long as newspapers and T.V. and radio stations chatter on around the world. The minister, absorbed in the conduct of that war in all his waking hours, must examine every subject put on the cabinet table with an eye to the hasbara challenges and tasks that may be involved. He will see to it his ministry should take action accordingly."

Friends of Israel have noticed the glaring failure of Israel's public relations. Columnist Ralph Peters (New York Post, May 17) remarks, "Israel needs to rediscover public relations. With the global media rabidly pro-Palestinian, Israel had better get back in the information fight."

Even were such a ministry started today, it would be many months before it became effective. Netanyahu can start the process now by speaking the truth about the fraudulent peace process and the true aims of the Arabs. Such a step would go a long way to energizing Israel's allies, from the powerful evangelical base frustrated at Israel's passive response to constant attack to Jewish Democrats grown uncomfortable with Obama's high-handed tactics against Israel.

Obama's position is not as strong as it would seem. Already there are cracks in the wall. Last month, Jewish senators led by Chuck Schumer sent a letter to the president, criticizing his treatment of Israel. Jewish Democratic donors have also expressed their dissastisfaction. And there are reports of rifts developing in the administration, as well. "There is the first sign of a schism in administration policy over the Middle East," Steven Rosen, a director at the Middle East Forum, said in a recent news report.

Israel must exploit the situation without delay. As Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick recently wrote:

"By using support for Israel as a wedge issue in the upcoming elections, Republicans will do more than simply constrain Obama's ability to harm the Jewish state. They will be setting a course for a Democratic return to strategic sanity in the years to come. And nothing will guarantee the return of bipartisan support for Israel more effectively and securely than that."

Preventing the international summit — that must be the paramount goal of Netanyahu, however uncomfortable it makes Israel-U.S. relations in the short term. Social security is considered the third rail of domestic politics. With any luck, the political fallout will be such that solving the Arab-Israel conflict will become the third rail of foreign politics, a subject so politically volatile that Obama will not want to touch it again.

David Isaac is e-Editor of www.shmuelkatz.com, a website devoted to the writing of Shmuel Katz. Contact him at David_Isaac@shmuelkatz.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Frank Adams, May 20, 2010.

This is a comment on "The 'Phoney War' And The Next War" by Dmeetry Raizman that appeared in the March-April 2010 issue of Think-Israel.


One aspct about inter war France and the 1940 defeat is not spelled out clearly enough.

Given the disintegration of Austria Hungary, Ottoman Turkey and the ostracism of Communist USSR between 1919 and 1939 Germany was the biggest unit of population and economy in Europe and as much was clear to everybody.

To have held up a balance of power coalition against her would have been difficult and so a war and victory to clip German wings effectively looked hollow, and for France given her population problems and profile, downright Pyrrhic whence her strategic caution. This is basically the old playground problem of how to deal with the bully of the class: avoid trouble or better, be friends which in the 20's and 30's was asking too much; or hug him close as friend to all which the post 1945 situation forcced on those defeated in 40-45.

It is this basic German physical advantage in Europe that led Germany to chance its arm on reversing the 1918 defeat — which it did successfuly till it over-reached itself by invading the USSR. It is also the basis of the slow build of European unity in the €U possible because the USA and USSR had taken the hegemony after 1944 so pulling the rug under local competition for it. The latest irony being the German reluctance to exercise that local superiority by propping up Greek and other "PIGS" economies: Portugal, Italy, Greece & Spain.

Essentially German Unity in 1870 dethroned France from the premiership of Europe and having retrieved Alsace Lorraine in 1918 at what turned out to be an exorbitant cost, her civil constituency was not in a mood to fight if it could be avoided because it was a hiding to nothing — especially after the 1929 crash and depression which at the time fitted the not only Communist explantion that economic trouble came from the bankers' ramp of unregulated capitalism. Remember in the 30's most of the labour force of Europe and USA — as well as the USSR were first genration ex-peasants up from the country onminimal primary education and even in secondary education economics was still a rare educational experience in the 30's.

The demoralisation and caution came from a reality that you do not provoke the biggest boy in class, and as regards the military doctrinal technicalities the Germans too were cautious and the move to panzers and blitzkrieg was pushed politically from Hitler for tanks and aircraft and from within the military the 1940 victory was largely a fact of Manstein (né Lewinski) being a better general than Georges the commmander of the French Northern front.

Frank Adam

Contact Frank Adams at frrankadam@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sandra Levy, May 20, 2010.

This was written by Philip Klein and it appeared in the American Spectator
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/05/17/ how-liberal-jews-are-enabling.


In the past, I've remarked to friends that the difference between a Jewish liberal and a Jewish conservative is that when a Jewish liberal walks out of the Holocaust Museum, he feels, "This shows why we need to have more tolerance and multiculturalism." The Jewish conservative feels, "We should have killed a lot more Nazis, and sooner."

I thought of this as I read Peter Beinart's new essay, "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment," which argues that "liberal Zionism" is in danger unless groups such as AIPAC start to take a more critical view of Israel's actions. Beinart, using a Frank Luntz survey of young American Jews as a jumping off point, writes:

Particularly in the younger generations, fewer and fewer American Jewish liberals are Zionists; fewer and fewer American Jewish Zionists are liberal. One reason is that the leading institutions of American Jewry have refused to foster — indeed, have actively opposed — a Zionism that challenges Israel's behavior in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and toward its own Arab citizens. For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism's door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.

The problem, however, isn't with leading Jewish organizations that defend Israel, but with liberalism. As sickening as it sounds, Jewish liberals see their fellow Jews as noble when they are victims being led helplessly into the gas chambers, but recoil at the thought of Jews who refuse to be victims, and actually take actions to defend themselves. It isn't too different from American liberal attitudes toward criminal justice or terrorism, where morality is turned upside down and the lines between criminals and victims become blurred, and in certain cases, even reversed.

In the case of Israel, what changed over time was that Israel went from a state that exemplified Jewish victimhood (a role that Jewish liberals are comfortable with) to one in which Jews were actually in a position of power, which liberals are not comfortable with. Meanwhile, Palestinians, aided by the media, effectively exploited Jewish liberals by portraying themselves as the real victims, and Israel as the oppressors. I experienced this first hand once when I went on a Birthright Israel trip (which is a paid trip for American Jews to travel to Israel). At one point, we went to the cemetery at Mount Herzl, which is sort of Israel's equivalent of Arlington National Cemetery, and is located by Yad Vashem, Israel's main Holocaust Museum. While stopping at the cemetery, we were asked to offer our feelings standing in a cemetery honoring fallen Israeli soldiers, and the first American Jew who commented was this liberal girl who reflected, "All I can think about is how many Palestinian graves there are."

Israel, right now, is surrounded by terorrist groups dedicated to the nation's destruction. Palestinian society teaches its children to aspire to slaughter Jews much in the same fashion as the Nazis indoctrinated their young. Suicide bombers who die in the act of killing Jewish civilians are celebrated as heroes. It's a culture that glorifies death and uses women and children as human shields to gain sympathy from the international community — and especially liberal Jews. And the terrorists are receiving aid from Iran, a radical nation that vows to wipe Israel off the map within the context of seeking a nuclear weapon.

Yet against this backdrop, all liberal Jews want to do is to pin the blame on Israel's efforts to defend itself, and engage in the magical thinking that more Jewish concessions will create peace and security. By doing so, they are helping the enemies of the Jews who are intent on finishing the job that Hitler started. While Israel has no shortage of critics, when Jewish liberals attack Israel, it's that much more damaging, because Israel's enemies can say, "See, even Jews admit that Israel is the oppressor."

While I would never suggest that Jews who happen to be politically liberal would want a second Holocaust to happen, I do think that by participating in a campaign to defang Israel and prevent it from taking the actions necessary to defend itself, that Jewish liberals are making things significantly easier for those who do want to carry out a second Holocaust.

Luckily, though, there are a lot of Jews in Israel who are determined not to let that happen.

Contact Sandra Levy by email at shula2933@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, May 20, 2010.

Militants teach students to fire rockets after tour of south Lebanon. 'It's like Disneyland,' says one This is from Ynet


Just days before the tenth anniversary of Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah hosted hundreds of students at what it called 'The Land of Islamic Resistance'.

For many of the Muslim and Christian young people it was the first visit to southern Lebanon. "We want our students, whether they are Hezbollah members, supporters or rivals, to see the land that Israel occupied for 22 years," said group member Mohammad Taleb.

Lessons on rockets, missile fire (Photo: AFP)

"We want young people to know of the achievements made by the resistance and show them how wrong Israeli occupation is. This land was liberated by thousands of resistance fighters who fought every day in order to return the land to their people."

Many of the students were wide-eyed at a meeting with Hezbollah's militants. "It was like being in a movie," said Grace, a Christian Lebanese student. "I respect these young men, who liberated my land. I don't see them as terrorists, as the West describes them."

The militants, on their side, showed their guests how to fire rockets and anti-aircraft missiles. "These young people give us strength," said one gunman after the demonstration.

The students also toured the area of the Beaufort, and planted a Hezbollah flag near the village of Maroun al-Ras, the site of one of the bloodiest battles of the Second Lebanon War.

"It's surreal," said a French student who took part in the tour. "It's like Disneyland. I never expected to see such things."

Responding to claims that Syria had provided the group with Scud missiles, Taleb was unapologetic and said Hezbollah would never lay down its arms. "We will keep our weapons because they will help us deal with Israel if it attacks Lebanon again," he said.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 20, 2010.


Next week, Israel will conduct a civil defense drill against a combination of bombardment by hundreds of rockets and a cyber attack that theoretically brings down the computer networks.

The government declined to state from which countries the simulated attacks theoretically originated, but it notified neighboring countries that these are war games (IMRA, 5/18/10).

Why hundreds of rockets? Why not thousands and tens of thousands? How would Israeli anti-missile defenses stop so many?

Israel notifies enemy states that these just are war games, so they do not imagine Israel is about to attack them. The Arabs and the Soviets used to allege that Israel was preparing to attack or that it started prior wars. The Soviets made such allegations to panic the Arabs into war. The Arabs made such allegations for propaganda, paranoia, or pretext for their own aggression.

When about to attack, a country could declare it is just staging war games.

Does the enemy believe Israeli assurances? The anti-Zionist side assumes that Israel is as deceitful as the anti-Zionists. One reader told me that Israel started the second Lebanon War and that the media and Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International verified it. He must have forgotten that, besides having fired rockets at Israeli civilians — a war crime — and built up a stockpile for more such instances of aggression, Hizbullah raided Israel and killed and kidnapped some Israeli soldiers.

There is a class of anti-Zionists who abuse the comments box to be disruptive. Although they read many of my articles, they studiously miss the point, reject points giving substantive explanation, and deny there were such points. This class of reader seeks to attach to every sub-topic an irrelevant rehashing of the origin of the Arab-Israel conflict, on the basis of historical fabrication. Some anti-Zionists generate false claims, and others accept them without checking, because it suits them. No scholarship there.

Although they read my articles, they act unaware of the rules of decorum for comments, which I have restated periodically. They seem unaware that no respectable newspaper accepts readers' letters that attempt to insult their journalists, call for mass-murder, and opine about topics not in the article. Some of them keep pestering, though I delete their comments. They assume a non-existent authority over other people's time. One said he could take up all my time. This is shameful behavior. Once a person has shown himself to be just seeking to annoy, his offerings no longer are welcome.

These people accuse one of fearing debate. But they do not debate with any academic integrity. They ignore one's points and call names. Not fear, do I have, but the same feeling in deleting their posts as in sweeping ants off the picnic table.

Specific, relevant, polite debate is welcome. Nasty harassment is not.


Iran is about to unveil a major upgrade to its main battle tank, the Zolfagar. The tank has been greatly improved and tested. It will be available for export.

New laser systems were installed, the fire navigation system was updated (IMRA, 5/18/10).

The U.S. exported its technology. It allowed into science and technology classes many thousands of Iranians and Arabs. The U.S. sold technology to foreign countries. Now Iran and Jordan have begun exporting arms in growing competition with the U.S., and some of the students must be helping build weapons of mass-destruction abroad.

Sec. of Defense Weinberger, who was an executive in a military corporation, helped Saddam build a chemical warfare factory, helped bring about the Iran-Contra deal that shipped arms to Iran, and against regulations set up a tank factory in Egypt. Weinberger was the same person who subverted the U.S. program of sharing with Israel intelligence, thereby tempting Pollard to share it illegally. Weinberger interfered with Jonathan Pollard's judge to secretly advocate the excessive penalty Pollard got, but years later Weingerger admitted that the alarm over Pollard was greatly exaggerated. Nobody held Weinberger accountable for his obstruction of justice, subversion, law-breaking, contribution to Saddam's war crimes, and fiasco in dealing with Iran.


The Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) advocates strong anti-hate laws, but, carried too far, the law in Toronto has turned around to bite it.

"The Criminal Code allows for sentences to be increased if there is 'evidence that the offense was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor.'"

Recently added to the hate-speech lexicon was an ungrammatically redundant construction, "non-Jewish Shiksa." CJC finds that addition absurd (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/18).

Both my parents could speak Yiddish. "Shiksa" means non-Jewish female. The word, itself, does not indicate anything else, and does not connote hatred. It can be used to express disapproval or be neutral.

Hate-speech is an extension of hate crimes and a way of identifying hate crimes. I have been the victim of both, but disapprove of the category of hate crimes and hate speech. It allows for too much discretion and therefore abuse. It extends into censorship and absurdity, as the Toronto incident illustrates. Let assault and vandalism be punished in their own right, and let society attempt to educate for tolerance!


The Israeli Army is training against possible attack by Palestinian Authority (P.A.) forces. The U.S. is turning P.A. troops into a formidable infantry. They are much more effective than formerly. Israel has to take them seriously.

IDF Major-General Avi Mizrahi says that an increase in settler violence, perhaps further burning of mosques [for which no culprits have been identified yet], could arouse the P.A. troops to attack.

IMRA pointd out that U.S. Gen. Dayton, who heads P.A. military training, warned that if the P.A. does not get what it wants from negotiations, it might use against Israel the troops he is training. Gen. Mizrahi's rationale for P.A. attack is "politically correct." (IMRA, 5/18/10).

P.A. head Abbas made the same threat. On the other hand, finding themselves picked on both by the Arabs and by the government of Israel, some young Jews in Judea-Samaria may be becoming violent. Even if they are not, people will claim, as people claimed when they definitely were not, that they are violent. It just takes rumors to rouse the Arabs.

On the third hand, the government has used agents provocateurs to commit violence against Arabs in the name of religious and nationalist Jews and to frame Jews for non-existent crimes or for self-defense. Could be that the government will get settlers blamed for what provocateurs do, in order to get a pretext for removing Jews.

In any case, the U.S. is training a military force under jihadist control that is more likely to be used to commit aggression, than not, whether taken over by Hamas or not.


A day after Iran announced a nuclear swap proposal with Turkey and Brazil, the U.S. announced agreement with Russia, China, and the other permanent members of the Security Council to impose a fourth round of sanctions on Iran.

The swap proposed to safeguard only half of Iran's fissionable material, and that half without international supervision. The sanctions ended up with less of a bite than the U.S. had suggested to Russia and China. China praised the swap.

The new sanctions include a mandate to inspect Iranian ships suspected of entering or leaving foreign ports with nuclear-related technology or weapons. The efficacy of such sanctions is not clear. Another provision restricts Iranian financial institutions (David E. Sanger, Mark Landler, NY Times, 5/18/10, A1).

Iran's swap deal was thought to impede the U.S. drive for sanctions. But the U.S. ignored it — apparently, the world eventually gets tired of deliberate delay,

The parties involved are play acting, with a partial swap and partial sanctions, and China pretending that the swap is more than a ploy to procrastinate.

First, Iran would take a week to flesh out the swap proposal. Then it would negotiate it. Then it might submit further proposals. Anything to keep Iran's nuclear time-bomb ticking down.

Some defenders of Iran keep writing in to deny there is any evidence of Iranian intent to develop nuclear weapons and that it was fully inspected. What do they think the fraudulent Iranian offer is evidence of? What about the IAEA complaints that Iran had secret facilities not inspected and that Iran, like Iraq before it, did not answer many IAEA questions? The answer is that they studiously ignore evidence.

Neither do they think about the situation. Why do they imagine China and Russia go along, even if dragging their feet, with UN sanctions? They do not imagine. Instead of taking their quarrel up with the UN, they take it up with me for reporting and explaining the UN. That is the jihadist way of dealing with controversy, blame the messenger. Americans should reject that issue-avoidance and truth aversion.


Up from the depths (A.P. photo/ Yonhap, Jin Sung-chul)

South Korea has completed its investigation of the sinking of its ship. It found the damage to have been done by a torpedo from North Korea. It intends to request UN sanctions on North Korea.

Since N. Korea hardly makes or trades anything, sanctions would have little effect. South Korea would be able to withhold subsidies of its northern nemesis. China could be asked to reduce its subsidy of N. Korea (Choe Sang-Hun, NY Times, 5/18/10, A4).

China uses the subsidy to keep its border with North Korea stable. It fears a rush of refugees.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 20, 2010.

We need your help here, from those inside of Israel especially, but those outside as well. I have been focusing on political events that in the main involve Israel in interactions with the international community, such as the "proximity talks" (which I address below.)

But now I raise an issue of a different kind, which cannot pass unnoticed. Arutz Sheva described the situation:

"The IDF's Civilian Administration issued a demolition order [May 9] against the spacious building that houses Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva at Yitzhar, in Samaria. MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union), in an unprecedented statement, warned that bloodshed would ensue.

"Local residents believe that authorities are purposely punishing the yeshiva because of a confrontation with the IDF that took place on Independence Day, and also because security forces hold the yeshiva's students responsible for various attacks against Arabs in recent months and years."


Note of clarification: Yeshiva head Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira was held by authorities this winter with regard to the arson attack on the Kafr Yassuf mosque. Reports the JPost: "A Jerusalem District Court judge forced the police to release Shapira for lack of evidence."

As to Independence Day, Yitzhar residents say that IDF troops began harassing visitors who wanted to tour the area and prevented them from entering the springs near the settlement. When the soldiers tried to hold back one of the residents, other settlers became agitated. The residents say that one of the soldiers stationed in the area fired a warning shot into the air. When he refused to give his name, the residents demanded that he remain in the area until he agreed to do so.

The IDF says that residents attacked soldiers with stones, lightly hurting three.


According to the Arutz Sheva report:

"'...the authorities are making special efforts to hurt the yeshiva in an unfair and vindictive way,' a yeshiva spokesman said... 'It should be noted that the building is an ornate permanent structure, with an area of 1,300 square meters, which was built with the aid of the Ministry of Housing and was approved by the various authorities to serve as an educational institution.'

"The destruction order, the residents said, cited an 11 year old work-stoppage order — one that they had never heard of until now. The building took years to build and cost over $1 million.

"MK Eldad reacted to the news...by declaring that 'the Defense Minister and his yes-man, the Head of the Civilian Administration, declared war on the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria when they issued a demolition order against the Yitzhar Yeshiva that was established 11 years ago.'"


Further clarifications from the JPost :

The IDF administration in Judea and Samaria claimed that the construction was done outside the zoning area for this type of building. The Yitzhar treasurer, Itamar Posner, however, maintains "that the building was within an appropriately zoned area of the settlement...

"...he noted that the ministries of Construction and Housing as well as Transportation had invested heavily in the project. They would not have done so if it was illegal, he reasoned.

"Posner added no one at the yeshiva has any record of a demolition order from 1999. Nor had they heard anything about it in past years.

"...The yeshiva...posted a response [on its website] that said, in part, that the legal status of the yeshiva was stronger than many other structures in Judea and Samaria."


I've been writing about Barak's positions vis-a-vis the "proximity talks," and his failure to protect Jewish interests, with, instead, an eagerness to run to make concessions.

Well, here he is, our muscle-flexing minister, showing one and all that he's really tough with the people on the right, and thereby courting approval from the left and, need I add, the international community. Obama and Abbas would be so pleased with him.

This cannot be permitted to proceed.


I am asking you to write to Prime Minister Netanyahu (not Barak himself). The demand is that Netanyahu stop Barak. We need a huge outpouring of protest. As always, numbers count.

Make your message short, and to the point, please. If you are writing from outside of Israel, please note that the world is watching and if Barak succeeds he will do Israel considerable harm among the very people who are Israel's biggest supporters. This has impact.

If you are inside of Israel, please get as many other Israeli citizens as possible to write.

Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses

If you do e-mail, for the first address, above, put: "Attention: Cabinet Secretary, Zvi Hauser."

For the second address, above, put "No Demolition at Yitzhar," "Don't destroy the Yeshiva," "Stop Barak now," or something similar. Short and to the point.


Now, to the farce known as the "proximity talks." Mitchell is here. He held talks with Abbas in Ramallah yesterday, and is scheduled to meet with Netanyahu today.

Right before Shavuot, I read yet another statement by PA negotiator Saeb Erekat, and I thought, ah, the "threat du jour." Said Erekat: "Israel is now facing two options: Peace or settlements. Israel cannot combine the two together."

Spoken, once again, with the arrogant self-assurance of someone who assumes that the American president will deliver for the PA.

Personally, I think our prime minister should put out a parallel statement:

The PA must understand that peace is only possible if it recognizes Israel's right to exist AS A JEWISH STATE. The PA should not delude itself that it can have peace without this.


There were additional statements that Erekat made that I wish to examine here:

"He added that according to agreements reached between the PA and the Obama administration, core issues, such as Jerusalem, refugees, water, borders and prisoners, would be resolved on the basis of international law and United Nations resolutions.

"'This will eventually lead to ending the Israeli occupation of our land and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state,' he said."

I've been writing vigorously about the need to tell our narrative, or, put more boldly, tell the truth, to combat the Arab lies. And here is an instance in which that truth is very badly needed. For the truth is stretched so badly by Erekat that it is not even recognizable as such.

"...resolved on the basis of international law and United Nations resolutions." UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, does not require Israel to return to the '67 lines and does not even mention a Palestinian people or a Palestinian state.

Erekat refers to "our" land (which is commonly understood to be everything past the '67 line), but it is not their land. It never was their land. We need to talk about the Sanremo Conference and the Mandate for Palestine, which exist within international law to this day, and give all of the land between the river and the sea to the Jews. Now, as never before, our case must be made.


Even Security Council Resolution 1397, which was passed during the intifada in 2002 and recognizes the "vision" of two states living side by side, calls for "secure and recognized borders." It says nothing about Israel returning to the '67 line and does not in any way acknowledge that all land on the other side of that line is automatically "Palestinian."

What is more, it "demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction."

And so, if Erekat is going to refer to UN resolutions, he should be prepared to put his own house in order.


I would further point out here that there is a difference between Security Council resolutions, which have standing in international law, and General Assembly resolutions, which are no more than recommendations and do not. Too often, that difference is conveniently ignored.

It is important to note that both resolution 181 of 1947, which called for the partition of Palestine, and resolution 194, passed in 1948, which the Arabs use as the basis for a "right of return," are General Assembly resolutions. They carry no weight in international law.


Yesterday, PA president Mahmoud Abbas warned about Israeli "provocations" that are threatening the talks. He presented Mitchell with a letter detailing Israeli "crimes." You can see just how far this is going to go.

Allow me, please, to note a couple of things the PA, our "peace partner" is doing:

According to a Palestinian Media Watch report, the PA TV children's show "Chicks," this past week featured children who had visited places in Israel such as the Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee), Haifa and Jaffa, and they were all identified as being in "Palestine."

"The Arabic word chosen to define 'Palestine' was 'dawla' which means 'state'".

"The Palestinian Authority alternates its messages between denying Israel's right to exist and denying Israel's very existence. This is one example of denying Israel's very existence, having it replaced by 'the State of Palestine.'"


The PA has declared "all out war" against the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. It has now launched a large scale campaign to persuade Palestinian Arabs that they should boycott everything coming from these communities.

This is contrary to what is stipulated in the Oslo Accords.

What is more, it is particularly galling considering that Netanyahu, since he became prime minister, has worked to strengthen the PA economy.


Above I refer to the "threat du jour." Here I have the US idiocy of the week:

Reuters reports that according to John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, Washington is concerned about "some elements" in Hezbollah. There is a need, he said, "to try to build up the more moderate elements."

When you stop laughing, you can finish reading...

Brennan, who made his comments at a Washington conference, referred to Hezbollah as a "very interesting organization" that has moved from being a "purely a terrorist organization," to a militia, to a partner in the Lebanese government.

How pathetic these people (not Hezbollah, the decision makers in Washington) are! I have news for Brennan: Hezbollah, which is bringing in weapons galore, is still a terrorist organization. My concern is that this sort of thinking may color the US reaction to us when, sooner or later, we take on Hezbollah again.

Remember when Obama proposed reaching out to the moderate elements in the Taliban, and members of the Taliban said they didn't know what he was talking about, as they were all the same?


I spoke about the farce that is the "proximity talks." I haven't the stomach here to also address the farce that is the dealings with Iran. But it's painful.


Allow me to end with teachings from a shiur, a religious lesson, I attended on Shavuot night. It was intended to provide us with a vision of hope during these terribly dark times. It did so for me, and I share this with you can you can be buoyed as well.

Our teacher used as her model the situation of the parents of Moshe (Moses). Struggling against the decree of Pharaoh to toss all newborn Israelite babies in the Nile, they hid their son for three months, and then recognizing that it would not be possible any longer, they placed him in a teva (Hebrew for "ark") and set it in the bulrushes at the edge of the river. There, of course, he was discovered by Pharaoh's daughter.

After studying the Torah text itself, we looked at two commentaries on this situation. One was exceedingly grim. Oh, the pain those parents must have felt, the grief... The other was imbued with faith (emunah) and hope.

Consider: Why does the Torah refer to the water-proofed basket in which Moshe was placed a teva? This word is the same one used for the ark of Noah at the time of the flood. What is a teva, as compared to a ship? our teacher asked? A ship has a steering column. A teva does not: It is steered by G-d. Moshe's mother, Yocheved, was placing her baby son in G-d's care.

There is a midrash that tells us that the day on which he was placed in that teva, is the same day (Shavuot) that years later he ascended Har Sinai to receive the Torah from the Almighty.

We must never, ever, despair.

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 19, 2010.

This was written by Daniel Greenfield. He blogs at the Sultan Knish website, where this article is archived at
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/05/ its-not-messaging-its-message.html


Two weeks ago I was asked what role Rahm Emanuel is meant to play in the Obama Administration's campaign against Israel. That question has now been answered. Emanuel has been selected for the unlikely role of the "Good Cop" in an administration full of "Bad Cops". After seemingly steering clear of Israeli policy, Rahm Emanuel surfaced in a meeting with several moderate liberal "Rabbis" to explain that the Obama Administration was actually extremely pro-Israel, only their "messaging" was screwed up.

The "messaging" tactic is one that the Obama Administration has repeatedly used to reassert its position while arguing that critics simply didn't understand what was being said to them. Think of Cool Hand Luke. "What we've got here is a failure to communicate." What that really means is a failure to obey. Run that through PRese and mix it up with a handful of buzzwords, and it's another attempt at pushing the "Reset button" while really saying, "We're not wrong, you're stupid." Hoping that the people they're talking to are too stupid to realize what's really being said and done to them.

The idea that Rahm Emanuel is the Obama Administration's top Jewish asset is already surreal. Despite his background, in his actual job Emanuel has shown about as much interest in Jews and Israel, as Biden has shown in the Irish and Ireland. But Emanuel's own political ambitions doubtlessly played a major part in allowing him to select this role for himself. The real Rahm Emanuel has no loyalties except to himself, which is why he isn't about to let himself be used as a "Bad Cop" and then thrown under the bus. It's safer to be the "Good Cop" and then walk away claiming you were misled by people you trusted, once the wheel turns.

But Rahm's soiree shows a dose of worry by the Obama Administration when it comes to their Jewish support. The full list of Rabbis he met with hasn't been released, but those who have are younger, moderate liberal and pro-Israel. This marks a retreat from the unofficially official position of the Obama Administration that its hostility to Israel is actually representative of a "new generation" of Jews who hate Israel. And anyone who disagrees is just a "Likudnik". Of course they don't say "hate". They have nicer terms than that, which is helpful when what you're really talking about is collaborating in genocide.

All along J Street and left wing anti-Israel groups have been promoting a youthful self-image, which is a tough sell considering that its president, Jeremy Ben Ami is pushing 50, and its moneyman, creaky Nazi collaborator George Soros, is pushing 80. But the left's progressivism requires casting their struggle as that of the caring and passionate youth against the uncaring old men. Even if the old men are the ones who are actually running the show from behind the scenes. Especially then. And so after picking over the rhetorical bones of Peace Now, they emerged with "Dor Shalem Doresh Shalom" or "A Whole Generation Demands Peace".

If you believe the Obama Administration, the Beinarts and the J Streets, they already control the youth, and only the aging organization leaders stand in their way, only because they haven't caught up with reality yet. This is classic leftist cant, that confuses their own propaganda with reality. And Obama's falling poll numbers have forced him to backtrack from the lie that his position on Israel is that of a majority of Jews in America. And after a year of extremely slimy tactics that ranged from accusing Jewish pro-Israel leaders of being out of touch with their own communities to using media proxies to hurl accusations of Dual Loyalty at anyone critical of the Obama Administration's mangling of Israel — Rahm appears to throw a few crumbs to the people who need it most. Liberal Pro-Israel Jews who are genuinely worried about the crisis in relations between the two countries.

The meeting marks no retreat, only a bone thrown to a starving dog. Many liberal Jews who do care about Israel and nevertheless voted for Obama need a reason not to turn on their master. And if a pat on the head was all it took to make Elie Wiesel lick the administration's hand, the idea is all it will take is a few sit downs with Rabbis from Florida to keep the Jewish vote from spinning too far out of control. A few doses of the old campaign spin. A little less James L Jones cracking jokes about greedy Jews, and a little more Dennis Ross, Baker's ole Jewboy, on set to calm frayed nerves and assure everyone that Obama is doing everything it can to protect Israel. When of course Israel would much rather that Obama go "protect" someone else out of existence.

If you listen to Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and Dennis Ross then there's nothing wrong here. Just another "failure to communicate." The reality however is that it's not the messaging, it's the message. Politicians and PR spinners love to blame the messaging, because it lets them go on thinking that they can sell any lie, so long as it's gift wrapped in a pretty enough package. But it's not the messaging, it's the message.

And the message is that Israel is the problem and that Palestine is the solution. That Israel's refusal to surrender 100 percent to terrorists is what is killing American troops. That Jews have no right to live in Jerusalem. That Israeli concessions are a prerequisite for any form of negotiations with terrorists. That the Obama Administration will wink at terrorism against Jews, but shriek furiously at a Jewish house in Jerusalem. All this is not messaging. It is the message. And the message is the same one delivered by Obama in Cairo. A copy of which he gave Netanyahu as a "gift". A newly Muslim friendly America that will use its leverage to finally bring Israel to its knees and destroy it, and by doing so build a new relationship with the Muslim world.

This intersection of Liberal realpolitik and Muslim diplomacy is where the Obama Administration meets its real foreign policy goals. As it uses the threat of Iran and its nuclear arsenal as leverage against Israel and on behalf of Fatah and Hamas terrorists. But the collection of brain damaged brats were too gleeful at taking the White House to control their real sentiments. And their open expression of hostility to Israel has been filed under the folder of, "Too much, too soon". That doesn't mean it's going anywhere, just that its grand entrance needs more work.

The Obama Administration had spent too much time believing that its J Street affiliates represented American Jews. They belatedly discovered what Emanuel had probably already told them, that this wasn't the case. But Emanuel's outreach to a handful of liberal Rabbis shows the political limitations of his own echo chamber. If Peter Beinart is at least willing to menace liberals with the specter of a conservative Orthodox monopoly on Zionism, the Obama Administration doesn't even speak that language. Its understanding of the Jewish community is as narrow as its knowledge of American Christianity, with encyclopedic familiarity of its liberal allies, and ignorance and contempt of the conservatives in the shadows.

In line with the left, the Obama Administration has adopted a Muslim-centric view of the Middle East conflict. But much of the Jewish community may have made concessions to that view, but has never adopted it. Yet this Nakba defined concept of Israel is uppermost not only for the Beinarts and the J Streets, but is the beating heart of Obama's Cairo speech. And when the Obama Administration tries to speak to pro-Israel audiences, it cannot even do so nearly as well as Clinton or Kerry, because it does not share a common language with them anymore. Where they celebrate Israel's independence, it mourns a tragic Muslim defeat. Where they appreciate a great country, it believes that Israel was a mistake. The gap in these two versions of history is as unbridgeable and profound as a Unionist talking to an IRA member.

Obama shares no common history with Americans, and his Jewish associates do not share one with the Jewish people. And thus they think the problem is the messaging, when in reality it's their message. And their message has been received.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Dmeetry Raizman, May 19, 2010.

President Obama and his advisors got confused:
The Jews dress up on Purim and not on Passover. He started with a lie and he continues with it.


To Barack Obama: Shalom from Jerusalem!

Newspapers informed the Jewish people of wonderful news: You celebrated the Feast of Unleavened Bread in the White House and even congratulated America's Jews. Thank you, Mr. President! It is always nice to receive a blessing for the holiday.

The Book of Esther tells us:

Jews had rest from their enemies, and the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to gladness, and from mourning into a good day; that they should make them days of feasting and gladness, and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor.

Why is it so? After all, we are talking about Passover and not Purim? Maybe, from such happiness, Mr. President, you are blessing the Jews, and I'm confused? No Mr. President! I'm not confused — but you are.

I look at the pictures in the paper and streaming tears melt my sight. How wonderful and utopian. Twenty Jews sit around the President's table with "Passover Haggadahs" in their hands! Most importantly — gefilte fish, kugel, and kneidlach decorate the holiday table! As my grandmother used to say — "a Zissen (Sweet) Pesach!"

Why does this still hurt my soul, Mr. President?

I am looking at another picture in my memory. The problem with the Jews, Mr. President, is that they always find something disturbing! We are an ancient nation and our historical memory is four thousand years old, so if we search in our memories — everything is there ...

I remember another presidential table — exactly 40 years ago. The date: March 4, 1970. The place: the Soviet Union's state channel's television studios. Just like around your table, Mr. President, Jews in policy-making roles, generals, deputy ministers, famous authors, superstars and many others sat. Why did 39 highly placed Jews gather around that table? To "masquerade." The USSR, a dictatorial superpower, decided to stage a show. The purpose of it was — as usual — to show the entire world that the government is not anti-Semitic — to show everyone: "How we love our Jews." I will neither mention here the names of the 39 individuals present there — nor those of the 20 sitting around Obama's table today. As then, today they sit there and play their part as they fear losing their livelihood. We will take pity them and not mention their names...

Forty years ago screenwriters and directors were sophisticated and far stricter than those of today's shows. We, the Jews, Mr. President — a scholar of collective memory and experience — know how to identify anti-Semite at first sight. When speaking, he always starts with his many Jewish friends and never forget to mention that his favorite foods are gefilte fish, kneidlach, and kugel ...

You, Mr. President, and your advisors are confused: the Jews dress up on Purim — not on Passover. On Purim, we tend to direct the "masquerade" — Purim Shpil. If your advisors would have done the show during Purim, maybe the trick would have worked ... After all, on Purim we are commanded to get so drunk that we cannot differentiate between damned Haman and blessed Mordechai. We put on masks during Purim, not Passover. On Passover we discover the truth — about ourselves, the pharaohs, ...

IF WE LOOK FOR THE TRUTH, MR. PRESIDENT, we find that not only was your show meant to confuse, but your blessing had the same intention. I am again looking at the words you wrote: "we must fight for the victory of freedom ... we remind ourselves of our responsibility to constantly fight ... we can change the world."

No, Mr. President. On the eve of Passover, you must have read the wrong book — not the "Passover Haggadah." Exodus, sir, is not the revolt of Spartacus, the French Revolution or the Bolshevik Revolution. You are confused! For thousands of years, we continually retell the Exodus and each of us — even small children — know well who brought us out of Egypt with a strong hand and an outstretched arm. Every child knows, Mr. President, that He Who brought us out of slavery, did so to transfer us to our rightful land.

It is hard to imagine, Mr. President, that you and your advisors are confused. Therefore, your performance of the "Passover Seder," as well as your blessing was, most likely, just a bluff. Just like a year ago, Mr. President, when you began your term with a lie — you continue with a lie.

It is unlikely a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School is foolish and ignorant. In your speech a year ago at Cairo, you praised the "immense contribution of Arab culture to humanity." An intelligent person like you must know that this contribution is not great, to say the least.

It cannot be, as you said in Cairo, that the Jewish suffering during the Holocaust in World War II is comparable with the "suffering the Palestinian people." Did you really think that the two are comparable! It is impossible to assume that you did not realize that your statement is a form of bold anti-Semitism — the comparison falls in line with the thinking of those who want to destroy the state of Israel.

No Mr. President, you're not confused. You brazenly lied — to your people, to our people, to the whole world. On Passover Eve, you also lied with your show — the Presidential Seder.

I WRITE THESE LINES ON THE WAY FROM HEBRON TO JERUSALEM. Before the bus (bulletproof, Mr. President!) drove off, I was on the "Seventh Step" of the Cave of the Patriarchs — beyond which Jews have not been allowed to go during centuries of Muslim rule. Even today, when Jews want to pray in the "Yitzhak Avinu" Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs prohibit it. Perhaps you, Mr. President, are more knowledgeable of Islam? Maybe you can explain why Muslims mark the Isaac's grave? The most Zionist of the three fathers? Isaac, who most symbolizes the connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel? Yitzchak Avinu, the only father who had never left the Israel? We are prohibited from praying in the Isaac Cave of the Patriarchs — where Arabs worship ...

Even when you spoke about freedom of worship, Mr. President, it is impossible to believe that you did not know of the prohibition. It is impossible that you do not know that the Arab leaders incited their followers to prevent the Jews from praying on the Temple Mount, the heart of Jerusalem. No, establishing a prayer on the Temple Mount for Jews is not allowed. Even an arrangement to let the Jewish Prayer Book to the Temple Mount is not allowed. It is not likely that you did not hear that when Jews pray to the Western Wall, the Arabs, from time to time — when they please, assault the Jewish congregation with stones. You talked about freedom of worship, Mr. President? You lied. When talking about the freedom of religion remember you actually mean the "Seventh Step" for us!

For thousands of years in exile, generations of our people have finished their prayers with the words: "Next year in Jerusalem." When we returned to our country in 1948, rabbis in Israel changed the text at the end of the prayer to "Next year in rebuilt Jerusalem." These days, from your piles of lies, Mr. President, we finally heard the truth — your truth: "Not to rebuild Jerusalem." Therefore, we must return to the Diaspora version which we had for two thousand years, and therefore, from our prayer, President Barak Hussein Obama, we must return to the prayer of the Diaspora ...

Pharaoh said — "Who is the G-d that I'll hear his will ... " Since then, over three thousand five hundred years, the pharaohs are changing. They return again and again to the same situation of the Egyptian Pharaohs, but in the end — they disappear from history as if they never existed. I do not really think that President Barack Obama will read what I wrote. I do not really think it will change his path. That is that path of the world's rulers: "I know the G-d but I will not release the Jews ... "

President Barack Obama — a passing fad, will not change his way and once he falls from history's stage, his reign will be remembered as a horrible failure. But his rule has lessons for us: we must change our ways. We must stop relying on American "friends," we must awaken from the dream that they (or someone else) will solve the Iranian nuclear issue for us, and we must stop fooling the public.

Contact Dmeetry Raizman by email at dr@symula.com

This article was originally published in Hebrew and translated into English.

To Go To Top

Posted by Sheridan Neimark, May 19, 2010.

............ drawing the precise line was complicated and the harm caused to settlements on its periphery was great. The majority of the line corresponds to the military front of the 1948 War, and while the considerations dictating its placement were primarily military, it soon became clear that in many places it divided towns and villages and separated farmers from their fields. Consequently, the Green Line underwent various slight adjustments, and special arrangements were made for limited movement in certain areas.[8]

Most impacted were (and for the most part, remain) Jerusalem, which the Line divided in half, into East and West Jerusalem; the city of Qalqilyah, which virtually became a Jordanian enclave within Israel, with only a narrow passage connecting it with the West Bank; and the village of Barta'a, which, partially due to errors on the map, was left with one third of its area on the Israeli side and two thirds outside of it. Kibbutz Ramat Rachel was left almost entirely outside the Israeli portion of the Green Line.[8]

Jewish population

During the war, a number of male Jews who resided east of the Line, including the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, were taken prisoner by the Jordanians, while women and children were allowed safe passage. All but a few of the Gush Etzion defenders were massacred. The prisoners were returned to Israel after the war.[4]

Thus, the entire old city of Jerusalem, including of course the Kotel, would be outside of Israel, if the "1967 borders" defined a new Palestine.

This below was written by Dore Gold and is called "The Myth of the 1967 Borders." It is archived on www.dore-gold.com.


In rejecting, the proposal for a Palestinian state with temporary borders, that Haaretz reported last Friday, Abu Mazen insisted that the only basis for any future political arrangements with Israel is "the 1967 borders". He is not the only one today talking about the 1967 lines. President Carter's, national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, just wrote an article in the Washington Post on April 11, along with former congressman Steve Solarz calling for a territorial solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "based on the 1967 borders." Brzezinski had recently been invited to discuss the Middle East with the President Barack Obama's National Security Adviser Jim Jones...............

In short, the 1967 lines are coming back as a common reference point when many officials and commentators talk about a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is increasingly assumed that there was a recognized international border between the West Bank and Israel in 1967 and what is necessary now is to restore it. Yet this entire discussion is based on a completely distorted understanding of the 1967 line, given the fact that in the West Bank it was not an international border at all.

Formally, the 1967 line in the West Bank should properly be called the 1949 Armistice Line. Looking back to that period, on the Egyptian and Syrian fronts there had been a history of international boundaries between British Mandate and its neighbors. But along the Jordanian front what created the armistice line was solely where Israeli and Arab forces stopped at the end of the War of Independence, with some added adjustments in certain sectors. As a result, the 1949 line, that came to be known also as the 1967 border, was really only a military line.

In fact, Article II of the Armistice with the Jordanians explicitly specified that the agreement did not compromise any future territorial claims of the parties, since it had been "dictated by exclusively by military considerations." In other words, the old Armistice Line was not a recognized international border. It had no finality. As a result, the Jordanians reserved the right after 1949 to demand territories inside Israel, for the Arab side. It was noteworthy that on May 31, 1967, the Jordanian ambassador to the UN made this very point to the UN Security Council just days before the Six-Day War, by stressing that the old armistice agreement "did not fix boundaries".

After the Six-Day War, the architects of UN Security Council Resolution 242 insisted that the old armistice line had to be replaced with a new border. Thus Lord Caradon, the British ambassador to the UN admitted at the time: "I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where the troops had to stop." He concluded: "it is not a permanent border." His U.S. counterpart, Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, added that "historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area"; he then added that the armistice lines did not answer that description. ..................

Over the last decade, Israel has made repeated mistakes in allowing the restoration of the 1967 lines and the downgrading of Resolution 242. It should have fought harder over the language of the Road Map back in 2003. Israel's right to defensible borders, that must replace the 1967 lines, has a strong foundation in international law and in the past policies of the UN Security Council. It would be a cardinal error to allow these rights to be eroded now, especially if new peace begin and the Palestinians seek to win international support for a Palestinian state next year that will undoubtedly be based on their demand to see Israel pull back to the 1967 lines.

The full article is at

To Go To Top

Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, May 19, 2010.

"Among the Rightous"
Conceived by Prof. Robert Satloff
Narrated by Robert MacNeil


Among the Righteous, which required eight years to complete, is indeed valuable and compulsively interesting. But as Phyllis Chesler writes (in pajamas media), this is something of a false notion — in these eight years, Prof. Robert Satloff unearthed and chronicles three Arabs who saved Jews. At the same time, as difficult as it was for him to unearth these unusual (even atypical) souls, it is just as clear that, largely, the descendants of these men are only grudgingly accepting of their forebears' efforts to save those most of their contemporaries now despise.

The filmmaker (Satloff is executive director of The Washington Institute) has to convince the progeny of these saviors to accept the honor of their parents' actions. They would, in a word, rather leave old ghosts buried, even if the ghosts are now being feted for bravery and decency.

Prof. Satloff says he could not find documented Arab/Muslim women who saved Jews, but acknowledged that many Arab women, without special documentation he could find other than hearsay, took in Jewish children, and certainly helped with feeding Jews, because Arabs/Muslims in North Africa got more generous food rations than Europeans, and both got more than did Jews, the lowest of the low, especially in Vichy-ruled Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria and so on.

I was conflicted while moved because in my month in North Africa, this February, I heard none of the information needed that I sought on these matters. Instead, my local informant/guide gave me the pretty history of the Romans and the various dead peoples who left picturesque ruins and mortuary stelae. The brutal treatment — by and large — of the N. African and escapee European Jews, thousands upon thousands of whom were interned in horrific concentration camps in the three countries bordering the Med, despite an occasional imamic fatwa (Algeria, note-worthily) forbidding Muslims to co-opt the effects or properties of the Jews in camps and in incarcerations. And elsewhere, where the king refused to go along with the Vichy nazis to force 'his' Jews to wear the ugly yellow identifier, JUDE. These were exceptions. The rule was grotesque, even compliant cooperation.

Where I was constantly unsettled was the accuracy of Satloff's claim: Indeed, where the European aspect of the murder of more than 6 million Jews was copiously recorded in film, photography, records (the meticulous Germanic obsession) and personal histories captured in book and tape and Spielberg's Shoah recordings, few today have ever heard of this North African contingent of Holocaust that murdered so many, with so little remnant left. Professor Satloff is owed a huge debt, an enormous debt, for his massive digging in stubbornly opaque libraries and hamlets now crumbling.

Elsewhere, yellow stars. They were systematically denied rights given to African Muslims. They were beaten, underfed, and worked to death in the swelter of the desert.

Yes: They had it slightly better than European Jews, who were frozen and worked to death or incinerated. But relative terribleness is no comfort to those imprisoned, dragooned into slavery, dhimmitized, guillotined or shot for nothing but for being Jewish.

Marion Dreyfus is a writer and travelor; she has taught English in China on the university level. She can be contacted at dreyfusmarion@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Maurice Ostroff, May 19, 2010.

Response to an article in the Independent on Deir Yassin.
Click here.
for the original Independent article and the BBC video interview with Nusseibeh, or here.


As a responsible newspaper, the Independent will no doubt be anxious to publish some little-known, but historically important factual material to correct wrong impressions created by a previous article, albeit unintentionally.

I refer to the accusing headline "A massacre of Arabs masked by a state of national amnesia" in the May 10, 2010 issue of the Independent.

The sub-heading "Sixty years on, the true story of the slaughter of Palestinians at Deir Yassin may finally come out" assumes that in fact a slaughter took place, but in the interests of journalistic integrity readers of the Independent are entitled to be told that Hazem Nusseibeh, an editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service's Arabic news in 1948, admitted in an interview with the BBC, that he fabricated claims of atrocities at Deir Yassin on the instructions of Hussein Khalidi, a prominent Palestinian Arab leader.

In a video interview with the BBC in 1998, Nusseibeh, a member of one of Jerusalem's most prominent Arab families, said "I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story,.. He said, 'We must make the most of this'. So we wrote a press release stating that at Deir Yassin children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities"

Although no longer available on the BBC web site, the interview may be viewed at

This false press statement was released to New York Times correspondent, Dana Schmidt leading to an article in the New York Times on April 12, 1948, claiming that a massacre took place at Deir Yassin.

True to Winston Churchill's quip "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on", Schmidt's story was reprinted worldwide and cited, even in Israel, as proof of Israeli atrocities. And all stories about atrocities at Deir Yassin that circulate to this day, are based on Nusseibeh's admitted fabrication.

In the video clip Abu Mahmud, who was a Deir Yassin resident in 1948, told the BBC that the villagers protested against the atrocity claims: We said, "There was no rape. But Khalidi said, We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews."

The fact that stories of a massacre and rapes were fabricated, does not in any way negate the historical fact that a heavy battle did indeed take place at Deir Yassin. In April, 1948 there was sniping from Dir Yassin into nearby Jewish villages. Foreign fighters in Deir Yassin, included Iraqis and irregular forces. Even an Arab research study conducted at Bir Zeit University relates that the men of Dir Yassin took an active part in violent acts against Jewish targets and that many of the men of the village fought in the battle for Kastel.

On April 6, Operation Nachshon was launched by the Haganah in cooperation with Lehi and Irgun with the aim of opening up the road to Jerusalem. A loudspeaker mounted on an armored car warned the residents to evacuate their women and children. Hundreds left, but hundreds stayed and a pitched battle ensued.

The use of the loudspeaker to warn the civilians to evacuate is a key point, certainly not the action of soldiers planning to murder the population. The loudspeaker is not in dispute. A publication of the Arab League titled Israeli Aggression states: "On the night of April 9, 1948, the peaceful Arab village of Deir Yassin was surprised by a loudspeaker, which called on the population to evacuate it immediately".

Israel continues to suffer from the mea culpa syndrome, hastily admitting guilt before examining the facts, as for example in the notorious Al Dura affair in which the young boy and his father were caught in crossfire between Palestinians and Israelis. Israel immediately admitted that it was possible that Al Dura had been hit by an Israeli bullet, although no bullet was ever retrieved as no post mortem was held. Years later, the French courts ruled in favor of Philippe Karsenty who accused France2 and Charles Enderlin of staging the entire episode.

Myths accusing Israel of misdeeds are perpetuated despite contradictory facts. Al Dura has become an international icon of Israel's supposed cruelty and an organization called "Deir Yassin Remembered", continues to keep alive admitted fabrications by the 1948 Palestine Broadcasting Service's Arabic news service.

A note about Meir Pa'il's reports

Since the Independent article refers to "a damning report written by Meir Pa'il", described as a Jewish officer who condemned his compatriots for bloodthirsty and shameful conduct on that day, it is highly relevant to point out that although he is credited with providing the most detailed eye witness account of the alleged massacre, several authoritative views cast doubt on his credibility.

Pa'il is reported to have been a spy for the mainstream Haganah, monitoring the activities of the right-wing Lehi and Irgun "dissident" groups, with whom Haganah was frequently in conflict.

It is therefore widely believed that he was only too keen to blacken the dissidents with accusations of atrocities. More egregiously, historians claim that Pa'il's eye witness accounts are spurious as they say he was not at Deir Yassin on the day of the battle.

For example in an article on Deir Yassin, the Zionist Organization of America notes that when the well-known historian, Dr. Uri Milstein, interviewed veterans of Deir Yassin, all said that Pa'il was not there at the time of the battle and that it was inconceivable he could have been there without their knowledge. These veterans include Yehoshua Zettler, Mordechai Ra'anan (commander of Jerusalem front), Moshe Barzili, Yehuda Lapidot, Patchia Zalvensky, and Moshe Idelstein. http://www.torahtimes.org/DeirYassin.html

Nor is there any evidence from Haganah sources indicating that Pa'il was present; the statements given by David Shaltiel, Zalman Meret, Zion Eldad, and Yeshurun Schiff do not mention Pa'il by name or by either of his code names, "Avraham" and "Ram."

The Haganah's Moshe Eren and Mordechai Gihon, who were at Deir Yassin and who knew Pa'il personally at the time, said they did not see him there. Yehoshua Arieli, who supervised the burials, stated that he did not see Pa'il there. Shlomo Havilov, the Haganah's commander for western Jerusalem, who spent the night of April 9 in neighboring Givat Shaul, stated: "I did not see Meir Pa'il there. I knew him well. If he had been there I would remember him."

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 Richard H. Shulman, May 19, 2010.

Last week, A U.C.Irvine Muslim Students Union speaker, Amir Abdel Malik Ali, upheld the officially designated terrorist organizations, Hamas, Hizbullah, and Islamic Jihad. He said he supports jihad on campus, "as long as it's in the form of bringing truth to power."

Truth? He equated the Jews with the Nazis. Unlike the Jews, the Nazis committed millions of murders, among other crimes against humanity, "and it was thus our right and moral duty to fight them, kill them, and destroy them." MSU implication: destroy the Jews and their state.

Chancellor Michael Drake responded merely "that at the speech, there were 'offensive remarks supporting terrorism.' He also stated that several other speeches, lectures and discussions that week were 'very difficult and offensive to listen to.'"

This statement was too "vague and tepid," the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) wrote to Chancellor Drake. To have any effect, it should have condemned the offending speaker and organization by name, Amir Abdel Malik Ali and the Muslim Students Union, for inciting to bigotry and violence. ZOA wants the Chancellor to denounce some specific, offending statements, such as the comparison of Jews to Nazis, antisemitism.

Such a denunciation by the Chancellor would be his proper exercise of freedom of speech.

Why should MSU even be allowed on campus, after having raised funds for Viva Palestina, which forwarded resources to Hamas? That fundraising violates federal law.

"ZOA also urges the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) to condemn the bigotry and incitement to hatred and violence that the Muslim Student Union continues to promote on the UC Irvine campus. These groups say that they are committed to fighting anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias, bigotry and violence...It's time for CAIR, the ADC, and MPAC to finally forcefully and publicly condemn the ongoing anti-Semitic bigotry and incitement to violence against Jews and Israel supporters at UC Irvine, and also to denounce the group that continues to promote hatred of Jews and Israel, the Muslim Student Union." (Press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member.)

Chancellor Drake is borrowing a technique of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). The head of the P.A. sometimes denounces an act of terrorism, but in a general way and without naming culprits. Nobody takes such denunciation seriously, since no one is held responsible. In the case of the P.A., the lack of specificity in the denunciation is because of sympathy for terrorism against Israelis.

In the case of the Chancellor, the tepid denunciation is paying lip service to decency without himself having the decency to enforce the law and to act against incitement to violence. His timidity encourages radicals to continue transgression. As for "speaking truth to power," it would seem that MSU is the power on campus, and the duly constituted authority is not.


Israel's powerful academic Left strongly criticizes NGO Monitor head, Prof. Gerald Steinberg. Prof. Steinberg believes there should be no Left or Right ideology in academia, through which thought is filtered. A university should educate and question, not indoctrinate.

NGO Monitor has exposed the dependency of leftist, anti-Zionist Israeli and Palestinian Arab NGOs upon foreign financing. [As a result, the NGOs appear less than legitimate Israeli organizations, and more as subversives. Their local support, presumed high in the basis of their efforts, became seen as hollow. Laws were proposed to require the source of funding to be revealed.] Some suggestions that foreign funding be restricted apparently were dropped.

The Left still cites the abandoned proposals while omitting the unpopular facts that some of these NGOs support the Goldstone report and the campaign to boycott, divest and sanction Israel. [That is not so much thought as an attempt to destroy the country.]

The Left reacted, as usual, by trying to repress the whistle blowers, who would require transparency in donations. Transparency would inform the public who is behind what group. That is civic truth in labeling, not repression. Many leftist academics share in the funds secretly donated from abroad.

For examples of such denunciation, "Prof. David Newman has lashed out repeatedly in The Jerusalem Post ('Bashing the academic left,' April 14, 2009; 'Who's monitoring the monitor?' November 30, 2009; 'The politics of delegitimization' February 9; and again in a May 11 op-ed, coauthored with Sharon Pardo). After Newman was elected by like-minded colleagues as dean at Ben-Gurion University, he used an interview in the Post ('How to make the next Buber,' May 11, 2010) to repeat the attacks."

Newman warns that "the recent attacks on the EU and its funding of civil society and human rights organizations and NGOs" will result in Israel's expulsion from "the family of nations for whom democracy and free speech constitute the most basic of common values." Steinberg counters, "...this European money goes exclusively to leftist causes, and not to the wider Israeli civil society in whose name they claim to speak. Similarly, the use of the label 'human rights organizations' often hides the abuses of these principles, as highlighted in the tendentious accusations of 'war crimes.'"

An example of a foreign donor is New Israel Fund (NIF). Its head, Prof. Naomi Chazan, ranks herself as one of the victims. However, when Prof. Steinberg explained how NIF and its partners seek to silence their critics, Prof. Chazan had no rebuttal. Who then, champions freedom of thought, NIF or NGO Monitor?

Steinberg observes, "For this group, the right to free speech only applies to the Left. Their protests over the government's misguided attempt to keep radical Prof. Noam Chomsky from visiting Bir Zeit University would be more credible if they had not sought to silence Alan Dershowitz. The Harvard professor criticized the use of classrooms for political indoctrination at Tel Aviv University recently." (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/18/10.)

Someone challenged, who monitors NGO Monitor? NGO Monitor's reports are open to discussion. If in error, critics could offer correction. They don't. They just try to intimidate, while claiming that factual reports they cannot rebut try to intimidate them.


Iran rejected the Western proposal for enabling it to get enriched nuclear fuel supposedly that could not be diverted to military use, only to come up with its own, somewhat weaker proposal. It prepared this proposal with two sympathetic, even allied members of the UN Security Council, Brazil and Turkey. The latter two are rising powers with their own interests in nuclear energy, so far, of a non-military nature. Brazil had abandoned a military nuclear development program.

Brazil's participation makes the Iranian initiative trans-regional. In other words, Iran operates independently of the West, issue demands on the West, and set itself up as leader of a new world order. Iran is offering itself as a political, cultural, and moral alternative to Western civilization.

Of course, Iran hopes its plan will take the wind out of the sails of the sanctions movement (A. Savyon, (IMRA from MEMRI, 5/17/10).


The U.S. had supported the original Western fuel-swap proposal, originating in Vienna, because it would tie up enough fuel so that for a year, Iran could not devise a nuclear bomb. Iran's proposal suggest swapping the same amount of fuel, but by now it has much more fuel and is capable of enriching it to weapons grade faster than before. Hence the new proposal is weaker than the original one.

Iran stated that it would continue to enrich additional fuel to the 20% level, the jumping off point for rapid conversion to weapons-grade. This "'is a direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions,' Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said in a statement."

Turkey's ambassador to the U.S., Namik Tan, called Iran's proposal a "confidence-building measure." Iran's foreign Ministry said, "This shows that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but rather peaceful nuclear technology."

Emad Gad of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo said, "Iran has a history of forging a deal and then going back on it. It lets the situation get really tense and then reaches an agreement." (David E. Sanger, Michael Slackman, NY Times, 5/18/10, A1.)

The agreement really is a con-man's measure. It builds his confidence. Far from showing peaceful intent, by holding out half of Iran's nuclear fuel stock, and by vowing to amass more unsupervised stock, and by doing this in continued violation of the Security Council resolutions, Iran is signaling what else but bellicose intent?

Perhaps the Security Council has proved itself a failure, but so long as critics of Israel claim vaguely that Israel is a violator of UN resolutions, one may ask where is their consistency in upholding UN resolutions, when Iran blatantly violates actual resolutions?


Turkey's role in Iran's proposal reflects its general foreign policy of resolving all issues between itself and neighboring states. Turkey has opened up trade and improved relations with Iran, Syria, Iraq, Russia, and Greece. Turkey has used pipeline contracts to foster trade and goodwill and to position itself as a global energy hub.

At the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, senior associate Henri J. Barkey said that Turkey highly values commerce, it has just done Iran a big favor, and surely expects a big favor in return.

Prof. Husseyin Bagci of international relations at the Middle East Technical University in Ankara said that the diplomacy helps Turkey's PM Erdogan "to establish him image as an international statesman and it helps Iran to gain time."

Turkish officials believe that sanctions do more harm than good. Turkey lost much trade with Iran, when sanctions were imposed against Saddam (Max Champion, Wall St. J., 10/18/10, A14).

The proposal is a debacle for Obama diplomacy. Instead of backing Iran into a corner, Iran has backed the U.S. into a corner. Obama had made an offer by the prior proposal, but refused to accept Iran's rejection of it and switch to another alternative. Now the U.S. seems to have no way of stopping Iran's march to nuclear weapons. Western intelligence finds that Iran keeps acquiring triggers for nuclear weapons. Iran also is almost self-sufficient in producing nuclear missiles.

It was the U.S. that encouraged Brazilian diplomacy, as if Brazil did not have its own agenda. Brazil turned diplomacy against the U.S.. Having identified itself with the prior plan, the U.S. will find it difficult to explain why this plan, having similar features, is unacceptable. Iran now is less isolated diplomatically.

Obama's diplomacy "has succeeded mainly in persuading the world's rogues that he lacks the determination to stop their destructive ambitions." (Ed., 10/18/10.)

Turkey started reconciliation with Armenia, too, but that process is suspended.

Russia also seeks to be an energy hub, and has used its power to shut the spigot in order to demand price and other concessions.

The Turkish professor's remark that the proposal "helps Iran to gain time" warrants analysis. Time for what? Apparently time to keep devising nuclear weapons.

Iran proposes continued violation of UN resolutions, keeping much of its nuclear fuel out of international control, building nuclear missiles or at least getting nuclear triggers — nevertheless, apologists for Iran keep asserting that Iran's program is peaceable, when the evidence strongly indicates otherwise.

Politicians do not like to admit mistakes. This must be truer nowadays, when the media shows no mercy for the fallen. But some day it must dawn on Americans that their leaders keep getting outfoxed by foreign leaders. They often understand us better than we understand them. It behooves us to study them and to analyze how they outsmart our leaders.


Iran has increased its capacity for enriching uranium in its pile. It has accumulated more than was estimated. "So much for all those technical problems Iran was said to be encountering, supposedly delaying the day of nuclear reckoning for at least three years."

Iran could have a bomb this year (Bret Stephens, Wall St. J., 5/18/10, A15).

My comments always scoffed at estimates assuring us we had much time. As the years passed, Iran overcame hurdles unexpectedly fast. The Marxists were right — new economies industrialize faster than the older ones, because they start with where the older ones ended. Also, when the stake is survival, one must allow for unexpected breakthroughs. In this particular field, rogue states help boost other states' proliferation, U.S. intelligence agencies have been politicized, export laws are lax, and exporters don't want to know that what they ship can have a dual use. It is easier for corporations and governments to turn a blind eye, keep making money, hard decisions.


While the U.S. was working on strengthening sanctions, and Iranian diplomats were working on avoiding them, Iran held war games that prepared to punish them.

During the week of war games, Iran intercepted foreign ships under various pretexts and drove off a drone observer, as if it controlled the international waterway. This aspect of the games was not publicized as much as the introduction of newly developed or improved modern weapons, declared to have hit their targets. Most significant may have been the new speedboat, that Iran claims can destroy large enemy ships.

The war games orchestrated Iran's claim that it can block the Gulf oil exports and halt Western industry (Arutz-7, 5/18/10).

The speedboat firing platform shows that offense and defense remain in a balance-changing duel. Miniature weapons render obsolete giant weapons that give advanced industrial powers their advantage. What is the U.S. doing to make its set of armaments relevant to this new type of challenge? At the same time, China is increasing its forces at a rate that soon would make it capable of dominating the U.S., first from extending its power, and second, from defending itself (This last point was explained by Mark Helprin, Wall St. J., 5/17/10, A21).

Is either the U.S. or Israel, both of which state with bravado that the military option against Iran "remains on the table," prepared, in such an event, to neutralize in time Iran's extensive forces capable of shutting off the flow of oil?

Will Iran's demonstrated power over the Strait of Hormuz, where most oil is shipped out, finally prompt the U.S. into energy independence policies? Will the U.S. continue tying itself to unproved and dishonestly defended notions of human-caused global warming refuse to switch to coal and its own natural gas? Are there any pipeline alternatives?

Suppose Iran decides, at great sacrifice in behalf of its version of Islam, to preemptively destroy the West and the rest by blocking the Gulf without being attacked or having sanctions strengthened?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Louis Rene Beres, May 19, 2010.

This was written November 1, 2000 and is archived at


Let us consider, systematically, Iran's growing military threat to Israel. To do this properly, we should begin with a look at the sort of models used by strategic analysts in general. Thereafter, we may move from the general to the particular, from abstract theorizing to concrete considerations of Iran and Israel.

In examining threats to national security, strategists traditionally distinguish between capabilities and intentions. These components of threat are never entirely separate. Indeed, they are often not only interpenetrating and interdependent, but also interactive. This means: (1) capabilities affect intentions and vice-versa; and (2) the combined effects of capabilities and intentions may be synergistic, producing policy outcomes that are greatly accelerated and/or are more than the simple sum of these effects. Understood in terms of Iran's growing threat to Israel, these relationships between capabiltiies and intentions now warrant particularly close consideration.

For the moment, those who would still downplay the Iranian threat argue that Teheran's unconventional capabilities remain problematic and/or that its willingness to attack Israel is assuredly very low. Yet, over the next several years, that country's ongoing development of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons will be substantial, creating conditions wherein a first-strike against Israel might be regarded as altogether rational. Even if it could be assumed that Iran's leaders will always be rational, a questionable assumption, to be sure, this would say nothing about the accuracy of information used in making rational calculations. Rationality refers only to the intention of maximizing specified values. It says nothing about whether the information used is correct or incorrect. Hence, perfectly rational Iranian leaders could make errors in calculation that lead their state to war with Israel.

Whether correct or incorrect in its calculations, an Iranian leadership that believes it can strike Israel with impunity or near-impunity could be strongly motivated to undertake such a strike. Such motivation, of course, would be heightened to the extent that Iran remained uncertain about Jerusalem's own preemption plans. Here, Iranian capabilities would affect, possibly even determine, Iranian intentions.

For its part, Jerusalem will fashion its preemption plans upon a number of critical factors, including, but not limited to: (a) expected probability of Iranian first-strikes; (b) expected harms of Iranian first-strikes (itself dependent upon the nature of Iranian weaponry, projected Iranian targeting doctrine, and multiplication/dispersion/hardening of Israeli nuclear forces); (c) expected schedule of Iranian unconventional weapons deployment; (d) expected efficiency of Iranian active defenses over time (anti-tactical ballistic missile system developments); (e) expected efficiency of Israeli active defenses over time; (f) expected efficiency of Israeli hard-target counterforce operations over time; (g) expected reactions of other regional enemies (e.g., Syria; Iraq); and (h) expected world community reactions to Israeli preemptions.

The Iranian threat to Israel might, on the other hand, originate from another direction. In this scenario, Iran's intentions toward the Jewish State, hostile and perhaps even authentically genocidal, could animate Teheran's development of unconventional military capabilities. Here, representing genuiunely far-reaching international hatreds rather than mere bluster, Iranian diatribes against Israel would ensure the production/deployment of extraordinarily destructive forces, weapons and postures. What I have now described, therefore, are circumstances where Iranian intentions could affect, possibly even determine, Iranian capabilities.

But what if Iran's intentions toward Israel were not hostile or genocidal? What if its public bombast were not an expression of genuinely belligerent motivations, but a position designed entirely for political consumption? The short and obvious answer to these questions is that such shallow and contrived intentions would not impact Iranian capabilities vis-a-vis Israel. Yet, upon reflection, it is altogether likely that even inauthentic expressions of intent could, over time, become authentic, that repeated again and again over many years, such expressions could become self-fulfilling.

The most complex relationships between Iranian capabilities and intentions, and potentially the most consequential to Israeli security and survival, concern synergy. Here the issue is not whether, or to what extent, one threat component affects the other, but instead how certain of their various combinations might (a) produce an ongoing series of interactions that moves relentlessly, through its own dialectical momentum, toward war; or (b) produce a wholly new effect, an effect of which either capability or intention is individually incapable. An example of (a) would be an Iranian "bolt-from-the-blue" attack against Israel that is launched only because of the particular way in which capabilities and intentions feed upon each other. An example of (b) would be any Iranian attack against Israel — bolt-from-the-blue or product of escalation, conventional or unconventional — that would not otherwise have taken place. This example is plausible to the extent that one believes Iran would never strike first against Israel, irrespective of Iran's singular intentions and capabilities, unless these two threat components were judged mutually reinforcing.

Now, let us move to even more concrete and immediate concerns. How might the Israel-PLO agreements affect Iranian posture toward the Jewish State? Conventional wisdom has been quick to suggest that the Oslo agreements, by codifying and demonstrating Israel's commitment to peaceful settlement of disputes, diminish the Iranian threat. After all, wouldn't world public opinion uniformly condemn Iran for any act of aggression directed against Israel? And wouldn't, therefore, Iranian aggressive intentions be reduced or even removed, a change that could slow down Teheran's pertinent militarization and consequently the overall danger to Israel from that country?

Perhaps. But the conventional wisdom may be wrong, or merely partial. It is also plausible that because of Oslo, Israel's inclination to preempt Iranian agression, an inclination that would express the principle of anticipatory self-defense under international law, has been diminished. Wouldn't the entire global community frown upon such preemption in the midst of an ongoing, albeit stalled, "peace process" in the region? Moreover, if Iran should recognize these effective inhibitions on Israeli action that stem from the Israel-PLO agreements, that country could calculate as follows: As our (Iranian) militarization will be less threatened by Israeli preemptive attack after Oslo, we (Iran) should increase our capabilities — especially our unconventional weapons capabilities — as quickly as practicable. Such a calculation, as we now know, could enlarge Iranian intentions to attack Israel and might even make cost-effective hostile actions by Iran that would not otherwise have been considered or even have been possible.

What about the effect of Israel-PLO agreements in bringing about a Palestinian state? Here, it is altogether probable that Israel's substantial loss of strategic depth would be recognized by Iran as a significant military liability for Jerusalem. Such recognition, in turn, could heat up Iranian intentions against Israel, occasioning an accelerated search for capabilities and consequently a heightened risk of war initiated from Teheran.

Israel, of course, might forsee such Iranian calculations and seek to compensate for the loss of territories in a number of different ways. Jerusalem, for example, could decide to take its bomb out of the "basement" (as a deterrence-enhancing measure) and/or it could accept a heightened willingness to launch preemptive strikes against enemy (including Iran) hard targets. Made aware of such Israeli intentions, Iran could respond in a more or less parallel fashion, preparing more openly for nuclearization and/or first-strike attacks against the Jewish State.

It is conceivable, on the other hand, that Iran would react to Israel's greater vulnerability — a vulnerability stemming from the creation of Palestine — by winding down its militarization, including its specifically nuclear militarization. But such a reaction would be entirely contingent upon the view from Teheran that Israeli intentions had become benign and/or that a Jewish State in the Middle East was no longer a malignancy. At the moment, deciphering Iranian descriptions of an Israeli "menace" and continuing calls for jihad, this view seems implausible.

Taken by itself, a Palestinian State would affect the capabilities and intentions of both Israel and Iran. But if such a state were created at the same time that Israel reduced or abandoned its nuclear capabilities, the impact could be even more substantial and consequential. This scenario should not be dismissed out of hand. Depending upon Israel's decisions in the future, it could become altogether real.

In spite of its extraordinary failure in the case of Iraq, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty continues to be widely favored as a promising means to reduce the growing risk of nuclear war in the Middle East. From the standpoint of Israeli security, this legalistic preference harbors considerable danger. Left to the protections of diplomatic agreements, rather than to more pragmatic forms of self-reliance, the Jewish State might effectively surrender its opportunities to endure. Such surrender would be all the more likely to the extent that it would involve any limitations on Israel's nuclear deterrent and on essential control of vital territories.

What would happen if Jerusalem were to relinquish or limit its nuclear option and were forced to accept a new State of Palestine? Significantly, Israel under such circumstances would not only be vastly more vulnerable to Iranian first-strikes, it would also have been deprived of its essential preemption option. This is the case because Israeli counterretaliatory deterrence would be immobilized by reduction or removal of its nuclear weapons potential and because Israeli preemptions could not possibly be 100% effective against Iranian unconventional forces. Of course, a less than 100% level of effectiveness could be tolerable if Jerusalem had a truly viable anti-tactical ballistic missile capability, but such a capability is still enormously uncertain.

The prospect of an Israeli preemption against Iran would be affected, inter alia, by that Islamic state's willingness and capacity to create an infrastructure to safely manage its unconventiuonal weapons. Inadequate Iranian investment in nuclear weapons survivability, for example, could generate substantial Iranian incentives to preempt against Israel. After all, fearing that it might not possess a second-strike capability — a capability to retaliate against Israel after absorbing an Israeli attack — Iran could calculate a military advantage to striking first.

Recognizing this probable calculation, Israel would confront an overwhelming incentive to strike first itself. Even in the best case scenario, wherein Israel would receive credible assurances from Teheran concerning Iranian rejection of first-strike options, Jerusalem would understand that such assurances could become meaningless in the wake of Iranian political upheaval. Faced with an enemy state characterized by weak and authoritarian political institutions, fragile civil-military relations and/or competing factions representing several ethnic and religious groupings, Jerusalem could find itself compelled to seize upon the preemption imperative.

How would Iran respond to Israel's weakened capabilities and correspondingly diminished preemptive intentions? Under such conditions, an informed observer might expect Iran to move even more purposefully and ambitiously toward full-fledged nuclear status, a move that would likely encourage first-strike intentions against the Jewish State.

Before concluding, we must raise the prospect of an Israeli nuclear preemption. It is, of course, exceedingly unlikely that Israel would ever decide to launch a preemptive nuclear strike. Although circumstances could arise wherein such a strike would be perfectly rational, it is implausible that Israel would allow itself to reach these circumstances. Moreover, unless the nuclear weapons involved were used in a fashion consistent with the authoritative expectations of the laws of war, this form of preemption would represent a serious violation of international law.

Even if such consistency were possible, the psychological/political impact on the world community would be negative and far-reaching. It follows that an Israeli nuclear preemption could be expected only: (a) where Israel's enemies in Iran had acquired nuclear and/or other unconventional weapons judged capable of destroying the Third Temple Commonwealth; (b) where these enemies had made clear that their intentions paralleled their capabilities; (c) where these enemies were believed ready to begin a "countdown to launch;" and (d) where Jerusalem believed that Israeli non-nuclear preemptions could not achieve the needed minimum levels of damage-limitation, i.e., levels consistent with preservation of the Jewish State.

Assessments of the Iranian threat to Israel must take careful account of both country's capabilities and intentions, the components of these threat dimensions, their sources, their amenability to change and — most important of all — their very complex relationships and forseeable interactions. Rather than be understood as separate and disconnected components of threat, these capabilities and intentions must be approached as continually affecting each other, both intranationally and internationally. With such an approach, scholars who would seek to improve Israeli security from Iranian attack, especially from an attack involving chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, could begin to move in more promising directions, accepting a strategic dialectic that is now necessary.

Louis Rene Beres is a long-time expert in international law. The author of fourteen books dealing with international law, he has co-authored scholarly articles in Israel and the United States with former Ambassador Zalman Shoval and Col. (IDF/RES.) Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto. Other international law articles by Dr. Beres have been published in Israel in Nativ; Btzedek; Haaretz; The Jerusalem Post; The Jerusalem Letter; Bulletin Of The Jerusalem Institute For Western Defence; and the Policy Paper Series of the Ariel Center. Professor Beres is Strategic and Military Affairs Analyst for The Jewish Press in New York City.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, May 19, 2010.

The Battle for Jerusalem is a Battle for Truth.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu attended the annual Jerusalem Day celebration at the Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva in Kiryat Moshe, Jerusalem. In his speech, Netanyahu stressed the importance of Jerusalem and the unbroken connection of the Jewish people to the city, quoting the verse from Isaiah 62: "For Zion's sake I will not be silent and for the sake of Jerusalem I will not be still, until her righteousness emerges as a shining light and her salvation burns like a torch"...

The PM continued: "There can be no justice without truth and if there is a perversion of justice vis a vis our city and nation, it means the truth has been perverted, because the truth is that Jerusalem is our city and we never compromised on that," he said, "not after the destruction of the First Holy Temple, nor after the destruction of the Second. We were a majority in the city until the 9th century and we returned 2000 years later and witnessed the city's destruction once again.

There is no other nation that feels this deeply about a city. Yet there is no other nation that has allowed such complete freedom of worship to other religions in this city. We will continue to build Jerusalem, a city that is full of life."

The Speaker of the Knesset, MK Ruby Rivlin spoke at the start of the event, saying "Over the last year, Jerusalem has lost many supporters... Today, some Zionist political parties who spoke of united Jerusalem until a short while ago, are now seeing the city as a problem and obstacle to our continued existence here. The same politicians who voted laws protecting Jerusalem into effect are now looking for loopholes in those same laws that will allow them to raise their hand against Jerusalem... Zionism without Zion, without Jerusalem is an empty shell. Our ability to withstand attacks on Jerusalem depends a great deal on our resolve and patience, on our ability to bide our time until the sword that is drawn over the city is removed."

Jerusalem and Torah — Even in Name They are Linked.

The Midrash tells us that when Hashem came to designate a name for His favorite city, He was, as it were, faced with a dilemma. Malkitzedek, otherwise knows as Shem son of Noach, first referred to the ancient city as "Shalem." Years earlier, Avraham, following his offer of his son Yitzchak as a sacrifice on what was to eventually become the Temple Mount, called it "Yireh." To call it only "Shalem" would be an affront to the righteous Avraham; to call it only "Yireh" would be an insult to the righteous Malkitzedek. The Divine solution was to combine the two and call the city "Yireh-shalem" which English translation has formed into Jerusalem. (It does not support the claim of so-called Palestinians, does it?)

Stop Desecration of Ground ZERO. Stand up and oppose the building of a mosque at ground ZERO. We have sensibilities too. Muslims must not be allowed to offend the sensibilities of the innocent dead and those who survived murder by terrorists shouting, in the name Islam and of the Koran, "Allahu Akba" as they killed 'infidels' at the World Trade Center

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

While so-called Palestinians strongly oppose the presence of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, it is estimated that between 20,000 and 30,000 Arabs are working on building them. Regardless of their Jew-hating feelings, all anti-Semites love Jewish money!

Rear Admission by European. On a visit to Ben Gurion University, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos said that Islamic fundamentalism was the common enemy of Europeans, Israelis, and Arabs as well. (They all know about it but in fear of offending their oil suppliers afraid to talk about it!)

PA Just Slaps Israel in Face. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said in an interview with Ha'aretz that Israel had done much to advance peace with the Palestinian Authority, but that the PA had responded by "slapping Israel in the face." Lieberman said "I think we made countless gestures, and what did we get in return? The glorification of terror." The day before the invitation to join the OECD was issued to Israel, PA Prime Minister "Salam Fayyad approached dozens of countries with a request to sabotage that acceptance. They keep going on with their stories about war crimes during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. After all, PA President Mahmoud Abbas himself called and asked us, pressured us to continue the military campaign and overthrow Hamas," Lieberman said.

Livni Brainwashes Children by calling Treason "Patriotism". In a meeting with eleventh grade students in Jerusalem Opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni, said that, "Israeli patriotism today means promoting the idea of two states. This is in the Jewish Zionist interest." (There is a Jewish saying: "Any evil can be justified by quoting Torah out of context")

Obama not a Friend of Israel. The Obama administration is preparing to join an international UN-backed advisory group the Alliance of Civilizations. The Bush administration boycotted the group when it was founded in 2005 because it feared the group would become a forum for bashing Israel and the United States. Those concerns were magnified a year later when the alliance released a report that officials in Washington said unfairly blamed Israel and the United States for many of the world's problems.

Quote of the Week: "How odd of G-D to choose the Jew. But not as odd as those who choose the Jewish G-D, and hate the Jew!" — Francis A. Schaeffer

Lack of Corage and Vision. High officers leading this week's big war game in northern Israel confronted Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi with harsh criticism over the lack of a clear government strategy for dealing with the rising Hizballah threat of aggression and the uninterrupted flow of advanced weaponry from Syria to Hizballah.

Foe in the Knesset. In an interview with the Kol El-Arab newspaper, Arab MK Masoud Ranaim, a member of Re'em-Ta'al party and of the southern branch of the Islamic Movement, called to establish an Islamic caliphate that would include Israel. He also said that all means are warranted to "protect" Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa mosque.

Actual Issue of the Right to Vote is Ignored. The Ministerial Committee on Legislation is scheduled to discuss a bill preventing the assassin of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Yigal Amir, from voting in general elections. (Why is the committee not interested in discussing the rights of Israeli Arabs, who do not have loyalty to the country they live in, to vote and live?)

Government of Lebanon is Hezbollah Partner! Lebanese President Michel Suleiman announced Saturday that Lebanon "cannot and must not" tell Hezbollah to disarm before reaching a deal on a defense strategy. A United Nations deal to end the Second Lebanon War in 2006 required Hezbollah to disarm. (No one is furious when Muslim states ignore UN resolutions.)

Tear Down Illegal Arab Buildings Now. Illegally built homes in east Jerusalem will be demolished in the coming days, Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch announced on Wednesday. The minister said there had been delays in carrying out the orders due to diplomatic concerns, but that the concerns no longer applied and that the demolitions would go ahead. "Police have no instructions to refrain from carrying out the demolitions. They will be carried in the coming days," Aharonovitch said. "There were times when the political echelon thought the timing for implementing the orders was inappropriate, because of diplomatic processes. The orders were not canceled, but were delayed. If there were such delays, they are no longer in effect."

Hypocrisy in Action:

"US Officials Monitoring Jerusalem Construction" — Maybe it is time for Israel to start monitoring US construction on Native American land and other territories occupied by the United States! In contrast, it is Jewish land that is occupied by the enemies of Israel!

Neo-Nazis Murder Yeshiva Student. Ukraine police have found the mutilated body of Chabad-Lubavitch yeshiva student Aryeh Leib Misinzov, who disappeared in Kiev on April 20, the anniversary of Adolf Hitler's birthday, when Neo-Nazis often carry out attacks on Jews.

Netanyahu is the Weak Leader and a Liar. Member of Knesset Michael Ben-Ari, the National Union, said that "The Likud government of (Prime Minister Binyamin) Netanyahu is leading Israel to destruction." He was responding to the announcement made in Washington that Netanyahu had committed to freeze construction in the northern Jerusalem neighbourhood of Ramat Shlomo: "His yielding to the dictates of (United States President Barack) Obama will bring about the division of Jerusalem." Not long ago, before Likud party members voted to postpone elections for all the party's institutions, based on promises that Netanyahu would not freeze building in Jerusalem and would never divide the city.

UN Elects Iran to Women's Rights Watchdog.
by Joseph Abrams

(Another example of the UN's consistent hypocrisy!)

Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest."

Buried 2,000 words deep in a UN's press release distributed last Wednesday on the filling of "vacancies in subsidiary bodies," was the stark announcement: Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was "elected by acclamation," meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states...

Iran' s election comes just a week after one of its senior clerics declared that women who wear revealing clothing are to blame for earthquakes, a statement that created an international uproar — but little affected their bid to become an international arbiter of women's rights.

"Many women who do not dress modestly... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes," said the respected cleric, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi.

The Commission on the Status of Women is supposed to conduct review of nations that violate women's rights, issue reports detailing their failings, and monitor their success in improving women's equality.

Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, May 18, 2010.

This is the Rosett Report for May 17, and it was written by Claudia Rosett and it appeared in Pajama Media. The original article has live links to additional material.


Hot tip for any reporters interested in newly disclosed documents on waste, fraud and abuse at the United Nations:

Just days after I queried the U.S. Mission to the UN about its commitment to UN transparency (Paging Ambassador Susan Rice), the Mission finally posted on its web site more than 130 previously secret UN internal audit reports. The UN, for all its endless promises about transparency and its ample enjoyment of other people's money, does not release these reports to the public. It is only thanks to the U.S. that they are now seeing daylight at all — though it takes some trolling through the Mission's web site to find them.

For anyone who cares about even minimal integrity in UN management and handling of taxpayer money, there's a trove of bombshell material here. Together, the reports total hundreds of pages, but the typical report runs about 10-20 pages. They date from October, 2008 through August, 2009.

Here's a link to the U.S. Mission's web page on UN Oversight and Transparency with the main links, and here are direct links to the newly posted and until-now confidential internal audit reports from 2008 and 2009.

Pick your subject and dive in, whether it's a summary of the "higher risks" due to "the lack of an appropriate structure" for the UN's own Ethics Office, or a report on the dire derelictions of reporting and accountability dogging the plump trust funds of the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Specifically set up to better coordinate aid, OCHA features in a Nov. 2008 audit report as handling trust funds with a throughput of hundreds of millions of dollars, but not bothering to produce any consolidated statement of cash flow. OCHA also had "little discernible linkage" between strategic planning and "the measurement and reporting of actual performance."

For those interested in the UN's climate bureaucracy, check out the July, 2009 report on the slop of the UNFCCC Secretariat's conference management, with its multi-year delays in accounting for funds. Or delve into the Dec., 2008 report on the UNFCCC's Clean Development Mechanism, where the governance was found "not adequate to mitigate reputational and other risks," and the executive board "due to lack of time" had neglected to adopt any code of conduct whatsoever to address such corrosive problems as conflicts of interest.

Or, in the realms of UN peacekeeping, with its more than $8 billion annual budget, for which U.S. taxpayers alone fork out roughly $2 billion per year, check out the UN's nearly $1 billion annual program for peacekeeping air operations. In an August, 2009 report, the UN's own internal auditors noted that participation by senior management was "inadequate," current staffing levels were "insufficient," time of effective bidding on air charter services was "insufficient," provisions in air charter agreements were "unclear" and some vendor registration was "improper."

It takes a certain amount of determination to slog through the UN jargon, in which an executive summary of "not adequate" is often code for outright abuse or screaming failure, if you slog on to the details of the report. But in these reports, which cover only a sampling of the UN's sprawling global system, the problems roll on and on. In corners that rarely receive attention from the media, they range from poorly documented lump-sum handling of noncompetitively-sourced travel arrangements for the UN mission in East Timor (UNMIT), to the UN's disregard of its own rules in choosing a director for the UN Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD), headquartered in Japan.

It ought to be reassuring that at least the UN's internal auditors are tracking some of this mess. But at the UN, it is one thing to have internal auditors flag a problem, and quite another to see the UN genuinely fix it. For instance, at the UN Mission to Cyprus (UNFICYP), where a growing web of UN scandals a few years ago led to fervent UN promises of reform, one of the audits just disclosed by the U.S. Mission, dated August, 2009, suggests that oddities lingered in such areas as "no competitive bidding" on commercial travel for contingents of Argentine peacekeepers, and "inefficient accounting of food rations." (Here's a look back at questions in 2005, then surrounding UNFICYP food rations).

For Washington to get any traction on pulling the UN out of its own administrative muck takes a lot of backbone and focused effort. But if the U.S. is to rely on the UN in any way, as President Barack Obama wishes to do, then the only course for minimizing chances of being tainted with the next colossal UN management scandal is for the U.S. to push hard, visibly and constantly for the UN to clean up its own house.

Credit Ambassador Susan Rice that the U.S. Mission to the UN has finally released these UN internal audit reports, even if for some reason it took well over a year to get around to it. (I can't claim credit for prompting these postings with my story last week, though it would be nice to believe the U.S. Mission is that responsive to criticism. Let us assume it was merely glad coincidence that I queried the Mission on the whereabouts of these reports just 72 hours or so before they were suddenly released in bulk on the Mission web site).

A quick bit of history here: When the Oil-for-Food scandal broke big time in 2004, the UN refused to release its internal audits of the program even to governments of member states, including its chief donor, the U.S. After a showdown with congressional investigators, the internal audits were finally tipped out in early 2005, via the UN inquiry led by Paul Volcker. They provided damning insights into UN administrative abuses and derelictions that helped feed the gusher of Oil-for-Food corruption. Those reports might have been useful in heading off the damage of that UN blowout, had they been released to the public as they were produced, instead of being exposed later as an embarrassing piece of the UN's self-serving coverup.

In the aftermath of those disclosures, the U.S. Mission under the previous administration began obtaining UN internal audit reports and posting them on its UN reform section of its web site. That's the third link on the Mission's current main page for Oversight and Transparency, OIOS Reports Archive, which runs up to Sept., 2008, and until the end of last week was the most recent information available.

For any current attempt to patrol the UN administrative habits, the next questions are: Where are the audits so far from 2010? When will the U.S. Mission post those? And when will the White House fill the important post at the U.S. Mission of Ambassador for Management and Reform? Since Obama took office, that slot has been left to an acting envoy, Obama's nominee last year having flamed out over questions involving his own issues of management.

The Obama administration's welcome decision to release the massive backlog of 2009 and late 2008 UN internal audits will only help if people actually read them and distill the information within, and U.S. authorities act by strongly pressuring the UN to clean up its endlessly proliferating mess — which in recent times has had virtually no oversight. The jury's out. Meanwhile, here's that link again, to scores of windows on UN management — or too often, mismanagement. It's a start.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Peck, May 18, 2010.

wrote this over a decade ago.. my mood was hetter then. It's dated February 30, 1998.

It's not easy being a sex Goddess. In fact, as time goes by, I'm finding it even more difficult. The years pass and all of a sudden you wake up and say, "I'm not a teen-ager anymore. That, is a fact, which I find increasingly difficult to believe? So, I suppose that since I'm at the age where I can considered a woman of 'experience' I can give you some of my insight into some of the profound events in life that I've noticed.

For instance, when Monica was accused of doing lurid and illicit acts, one in particular, with our President, probably a good portion of you men out there were thinking, "It couldn't be true! Jewish girls just don't do those things." Well, there is something to be said for the vast Jewish achievements that we've done. For being less than three percent of the population, we're probably eighty percent of the Nobel Prize winners. But, there are many areas where we are sadly lacking.

For instance, how many women out there think that their children call them as often as their parent's think that they should? Can you ever remember your mother let the cleaning lady leave without feeding her lunch? I have a feeling that more than a few of you were raised by Jewish mothers such as me who would tell me, "Fifty people should be able to come into your house, unexpectedly and you shouldn't have to leave the house to buy anything to feed them. There are also certain jobs that we, as a group don't seem to qualify. For instance, have you ever seen a Jewish lion tamer, rodeo clown, or bullfighter? We also don't stand by the road with signs that say "Hungry, will work for food' Maybe for union wages, but, we're definitely not a people who sell veggies by the wayside. Jewish tans are not acquired from farming or riding horses while doing stunt work. When we swim, we don't dive for pearls. We may buy pearls but rarely wear just one strand. Incidentally, Jewish mothers, a good one that is, taught her children to automatically know that when you stop off to visit a friend, it's a given that they being a gift.

Listen, what I'm telling you now is something you should clip and stick on the refrigerator if you have any aspirations of surviving in a Jewish family. There are just basic things that you should know. For instance, how many of you know that there are no Jews living in El Paso or trailer parks. I have long said in this column that there has been an on-going controversy these days concerning when life begins. In Jewish tradition the fetus is not considered a viable human being until they finish medical school.

Our names have become highly creative. Jewish children now have 'mainstream' names. However, we still don't think to name our children, Chris, Shawn, Paddy or Buffy. Jewish women may shop at Victoria Secrets but not too many of them worship at the shrine of Laura Ashley and buy underwear with duck of the week on them

Jewish weddings rarely serve cookies and punch at them. For the most part, you could serve Bosnia with the surplus found there. What you don't find either are floral arrangements left at the tables? Nothing is wasted.... Ever! Incidentally, the cleaning lady in a Jewish household is expected to not only do windows and make latkes but also, attend all family bar mitzvahs and weddings.

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 Shula Bahat and Gloria Golan, May 18, 2010.

On the eve of Chag Shavuot
As we mark the giving of the Torah and a code of
Ethics and values to the Jewish People
And celebrate the harvest

Best wishes are extended to you and those you hold dear
For and inspiring and joyous holiday

Ruth and Boaz
Julius von Carolsfeld painting of Ruth the Moabite and Boaz

Shula Bahat is CEO, Beit Hatfutsot of America and Gloria Golan is Director, American Friends of Beit Hatfutsot.

To Go To Top

Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, May 18, 2010.

To mark Jonathan Pollard's 25th year in American captivity — which is also his 25th year of abandonment and betrayal by the government of Israel — J4JP will be reviewing some of the best-written, most informative, and most interesting articles, essays and information written about the case over the last two and a half decades.

This is article number 21 of the series. It was written in March 2005 by Esther Pollard and published as an exclusive commentary by Worldnetdaily, following Jonathan Pollard's final Appellate Court Hearing in 2005. This hearing was yet another attempt to bring Jonathan's case back to court so that the merits of his case might be heard. To this day, the merits of Jonathan's case have never been heard in a court of law. It is fitting to repeat the previous statement so that the reader can fully grasp the fact that a man has been held, and continues to be held, in an American prison for twenty-five years even though the merits of his case have never been heard in a court of law!

All of Jonathan Pollard's legal avenues in the United States have been exhausted. The final avenue of appeal, the US Supreme Court has also ducked the Pollard case repeatedly, refusing to hear it. For those who are wondering, the US Supreme Court does not have to explain why it refuses to hear a case.

The continued incarceration of Jonathan Pollard, now in his 25th year of a life sentence with no end in sight is America's badge of shame and Israel's dishonor.

The article below contains a wealth of information which must shock and alarm fair-minded readers. It needs no further introduction.



"The problem with Mr. Pollard is that he thinks he is unique."

These words were spoken about my husband, Jonathan Pollard, by a judge in the US Appeals Court for the District of Columbia.

Jonathan is in his 20th year of an unprecedented life sentence for his activities on behalf of Israel. On March 15, 2005, Jonathan's pro bono attorneys, Eliot Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, appeared before a panel of three judges in the US Appeals Court. Despite outward appearances, Jonathan's case was never heard.

One of the judges, Judge Karen Henderson, asked no questions and made no comments of any kind. Another judge, Judge Judith Rogers, briefly engaged counsel for both sides. The third judge, Judge David Sentelle dominated the hearing. He was openly hostile, mocking and scornful.

Unchallenged by the other two judges, Judge Sentelle hijacked the hearing. He side-tracked the oral argument, verbally harassing and nitpicking on irrelevant matters until the attorneys' time was up. Consequently, the only one heard that day was Judge Sentelle; and much of what he said was either irrelevant or deeply offensive.

For example, Judge Sentelle went so far as to insist that in this case the court does not have the authority to allow Jonathan's security-cleared attorneys access to their client's own sentencing file. How much more obvious could Sentelle's contempt be, than to suggest that the court has no authority over court documents!

Worse, Judge Sentelle's hostile declaration, "The problem with Mr. Pollard is that he thinks he is unique" was deeply offensive to Jews and reverberated painfully in Israeli media reports.

"You are not unique" is code talk that has been used over and over again throughout the ages by those hostile to Israel and Jews, to deny concerns that Jews are being singled out for 'special treatment.' It is the most routine of anti-Semitic devices, and it seems that it is always used precisely when Jews are indeed being singled out.

What makes Judge Sentelle's remark even more stunning, is that it so blatantly flies in the face of the facts.


Here are some of the unique features of the Pollard case which Judge Sentelle wishes to dismiss:

  • Jonathan Pollard is the only person in the history of the United States to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally.

  • Jonathan is in his 20th year of a life sentence for an offense which carries a median sentence of 2 to 4 years.

  • Jonathan received his life sentence without benefit of trial, as the result of a plea bargain which he honored and the Government abrogated.

  • Jonathan was forever deprived of his legal right to a direct appeal of his life sentence, because of egregious ineffective assistance of counsel. His first attorney failed to file a simple notice of intent to appeal.

  • Jonathan's is the only espionage case in which then-Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger personally intervened to influence the court.

  • Weinberger delivered a memorandum to the sentencing judge, falsely accusing Jonathan of treason — a crime he was never accused of nor indicted for — and called for the maximum sentence of life.

  • Since Jonathan was sentenced in 1987, neither he nor his security-cleared attorneys have ever been permitted to access the Weinberger document to challenge the lies it contains in a court of law.

  • Jonathan is still not permitted to access the document even though Weinberger himself admitted in a 2002 interview that the case against Jonathan Pollard was actually "a small matter" and that it had been blown up and "made far bigger than its actual importance." (http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2002/061402.htm)


Another unique feature of this case is the repeated attempts by the FBI to make Jonathan "buy" his way out of nightmarish prison conditions by incriminating other prominent American Jews. He was repeatedly asked to point out "co-conspirators" on list of Jewish names he was shown. Jonathan adamantly refused.

More troubling still, are the numerous episodes of cruel and unusual punishment which Jonathan has been subjected to — not only at the start of this case, but even as recently as the fall of 2003 when he was held in Washington for two weeks pending a September 2nd court date

Some examples of cruel and unusual punishment Jonathan has endured include:

  • being held naked, and incommunicado, in a prison facility for the criminally insane for a over a year (at Springfield)
  • being held in harsh conditions in solitary confinement for nearly 7 years (at Marion)
  • being held naked, and incommunicado, in freezing temperatures in a dungeon cell (at Lewisberg)
  • being subjected to extreme sensory deprivation
  • being subjected to severe physical degradation
  • being held in a sealed cell and gassed with chemical spray
  • being chained to a shower stall and blasted by torrents of ice water for long periods at a stretch
  • being denied appropriate medical treatment
  • being deprived of critical medication
  • being zapped into convulsions with an electric cattle prod


Perhaps the feature of this case which is the most disturbing is the way in which it has been exploited over the last 2 decades by Government agencies. Jonathan's continued incarceration has been a very useful tool for the Government in the following ways:

  • The case is used to undermine Israel.

    To blacken Israel by blackening her agent, "unnamed" American officials continue to slander Jonathan in the media, falsely accusing him of crimes he was never accused of or indicted for — treason, compromising codes and betraying agents, among others. These false accusations are always made in the media, never in a court of law where Jonathan might challenge his accusers.

  • The case is used to slander Jews

    Government memos, like the one the Defense Department issued in 1996 which was leaked to the media, cite the Pollard case as the reason the Jews cannot be trusted. The 1996 Defense Memo identified Israel as a "non-traditional adversary", not an ally. The Pollard case is always dredged up and paraded in the media by the Government officials any time a new spy case breaks, or whenever Israel needs to be brought to heel. The 1997 Mega Spy Scandal (which turned out to be baseless) and the recent AIPAC Spy Scandal are examples. Both cases had nothing to do with Jonathan Pollard, yet his name was blasted all over the media as the prime example of how Israel and the Jews cannot be trusted.

  • The case is used to pander to the Arabs

    In the government's damage assessment of the case — the Victim Impact Statement — the worst "damage" that Jonathan was accused of was that he had angered the Arab allies by making Israel too strong. The harsh sentence he received and the "special treatment" he has been subjected to, has been and continues to be an "offering" to appease the oil-rich Arabs.

  • The case is used to purge Jews from Government.

    Jonathan was not the cause of anti-Semitism in the Intelligence Community; he was one of its victims. But his case is still used to justify Government witch-hunts to root out Jews in sensitive positions and cancel their security clearances. The David Tanenbaum and Adam Ciralsky cases — both were Jews ousted from the Intelligence community because of their affiliation with Israel — are examples of this purge.


The Justice, Intelligence and Defense Departments willingly collude to keep the truth about the Pollard case buried. This ensures that the Government can continue to exploit the case for other purposes, such as the above. It also explains why the Government is so determined to keep Jonathan's own court docket hidden under a veil of secrecy.

The best legal minds in the country support Jonathan's right to access the material in his own sentencing docket. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), The American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (AAJLJ) and prominent individuals have filed a "Friend of the Court Brief" in support of access to the documents. Their Amicus brief expresses some compelling concerns about this case.

Others who have expressed their concerns about this case are: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who said that she is troubled by 'sentencing issues' in the Pollard case; http://www.jonathanpollard.org/ciralsky.htm, the number 3 man at the justice department when the Pollard case broke, has repeatedly said that there is nothing in the Pollard file to justify the sentence he received; Senator Charles Schumer, Congressman Anthony Weiner and other American legislators have voiced similar concerns. All those who have seen the classified file, including Schumer and Weiner, say that it does not contain any justification for the life sentence Jonathan received.

And then there's Dennis Ross, Special Envoy to the Middle East during the Clinton Administration. In his new book, The Missing Peace, Ross openly acknowledges that Jonathan's sentence is disproportionate and that he should be freed without condition.

Nevertheless, says Ross, Jonathan is too valuable as a bargaining chip with Israel to be freed as a matter of simple justice. Instead, Ross explains, Pollard should go free only in return for major concessions from Israel during "final status talks" with the Palestinians. No other American ally is treated with such disdain. Clearly it is politics, not justice which drives the Pollard case.


No, Judge Sentelle. The problem is not with Jonathan Pollard.

It is with those American officials who, through 5 successive administrations, have used this case as a device to call into question the loyalty of American Jews and Israel's reliability as an ally.

The problem is with those officials in the Justice, Intelligence and Defense Departments who allow the case to fester because it is such a fine weapon with which to bludgeon Israel and the Jews.

And of course, the problem lies with Israel and the American Jewish leadership whose silence and complicity have exacerbated the situation and prolonged Jonathan's agony. By continuously turning their backs on Government excesses and judicial inequities in the Pollard case, they have tried to convince themselves that this really has nothing to do with them. Then along comes Judge Sentelle and reminds them that it does.

Israel and the American Jewish leaders have sat back for nearly 2 decades, patiently waiting for the American justice system to prove that it works as well for Jews as it does for every other religious minority. Yet, every time Jonathan Pollard — the Jew who spied for the Jewish state — encounters the American justice system, the entire Jewish world is slapped in the face all over again.


Two hundred years ago, President George Washington visited the Truro Synagogue of the Jewish community of Rhode Island. He later penned a letter to the community declaring that Jews are welcome as full citizens of the United States of America and equal in every respect:

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of," Washington wrote, "as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights." He also declared that the government gave "to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance."

Denied justice for 20 years, Jonathan's case has become a noxious poison draining the vitality of the American Jewish community and undermining America's relationship with Israel. If the promise that George Washington made to American Jews two hundred years ago is to be honored; if the Jewish community in America is to have a future in this country, then justice for Jonathan Pollard, long delayed, must finally be done.

The Pollard case is not only about Jonathan Pollard. It is about America's real attitude towards Jews and its relationship with Israel. It is also about whether or not the nation which is so devoted to bringing freedom to other parts of the world is capable of freeing itself. Government lies and judicial collusion are keeping Jonathan Pollard in prison. It is time for them to stop.

As long as Jonathan Pollard remains in prison, truth and justice in America are in prison too.

# See Also: Hebrew Text: George Washington Jonathan Pollard and The Jews http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2005/032405.pdf --

Contact Justice For Jonathan Pollard at their website: http://www.JonathanPollard.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg

This was written by Marc Prowisor. Contact him by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com and visit his website


Part 1: Artistes

Yet another "Artist" cancels his performance in Israel, due to "political pressure" he says. Elvis Costello does not want his name associated with Israel and the "Palestinian conflict". Guess what...Elvis... we don't want you or any other spineless, hypocritical, student of deceit, so called "Artist" associated with it also. We are here for the real people, you know the truth seekers, those who have self respect and values.

Amazing, this "pressure" we keep on hearing about. It has put a noose on "Hollywood", Washington and New York, it is strangling free speech and thought, it is crippling University campuses and it is blinding justice throughout the world, it is causing our people outside of Israel to hide...to name a few.

It has many names; I will stick with one of them, pure, unadulterated hatred. Hatred, not necessarily of Jews or all Jews (depending who you ask), but of anything that has to do with real Jewish identity, strength, and lets not forget, any splinter of a Jewish land.

It's the popular and "in" thing to be nowadays. Anti Israel is cool, it doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong, it's "cool". You know, like when it was "cool" to hate Jews in Germany back a few years.

How many of you just thought... "Hey, that's a bit extreme"? Is it?

Part 2: A Phony Nation

Today many nations of the world are supporting one of the greatest illusions of the 20th century... the "Palestinian nation", totally ignoring history and the connection of Jews to this land. These same nations and people champion and work towards an ethnic cleansing of Jews in parts of Israel (for now). Boycotts against Israel, (who has given more to the world, compared with most other nations today), World-wide anti Israel activities are popular amongst the supposed "intellectuals", among many other despicable actions, all this while countless Muslims around the world are being slaughtered daily by other Muslims, (mostly Arabs). Mosques are being blown up, a Muslim communities are being ravaged in many Arab countries, again while the Arab and Muslim world (and UN) keep quiet, just to name a few.

You know why the Arabs keep quiet, because they think it is alright for Muslims to kill each other, it is alright to kill Jews and Africans, they have been doing it for millennia anyway, here's the bad news, the world thinks it's OK also.

Gee, sounds kind of one-sided, sort of racist, you know what I mean?

The latest joke cropping up this side of the Jordan is now the Arab Palestinian Authority is calling for a boycott of goods made in the communities and Industrial Zones of Judea and Samaria. Their spokesman just said minutes ago that they do not care about Arabs loosing their jobs. This is so typical... the Arab leaders have never cared about their own people, only about themselves. Sound biased? Ask any Arab living in an Arab country, not the runaway expats in the US. They better start praying that their own people don't lynch them soon.

Mel Brooks, where are you when we need you?

Part 3: We're Waking Up

And now to switch topics, as dangerous and moronic as the world is behaving and will continue to behave (don't worry, it will get worse), it has become boring and primitive, and so I will move on.

The other day, a contingent from the far off world of Tel Aviv came to visit Shilo. The discussion was based on the image of the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria the world sees, and the image that the rest of Israel sees. Obviously the pride of our region often goes unnoticed or unrecognized, be they world class University Professors, Doctors, Heroes of Disaster ridden Haiti, Artists or just the good people who surround us daily, the world sees what the media shows them, most often the negative side (which is the minority).

One major topic came up that should bring pride to anyone living in Judea and Samaria, that being the family, community, Zionist and Jewish values that exist in the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria are noticeably being missed in the rest of the country.

Our children are being looked upon as what should be, and what many parents wish for their own. Nothing to do with a specific religious outlook, as our communities are not defined by religious adherence or affiliation, indeed we are quite mixed. Many in Israel are reminiscing about the "good old days", and they are seeing them again in the Jewish population of Judea and Samaria. Israel is waking up, despite our politician's unrealistic views and ideas. Unfortunately many of our fellow Jews outside of Israel do not see this, simply because they are afraid or "pressured" into not coming and visiting these communities, so much for "Birthright" or the various "Leadership" Missions. I do not plan on "bashing" others, their loss far out-weighs their gains.

Wake up NOW!

Shavuot is upon us, thank Gd, one again we celebrate the giving and the receiving of the Torah, we also celebrate the harvest, again giving and receiving, in short...Heaven and Earth coming together. Eternal connections that were made long ago that last forever, that should always be together.

Like the Jewish people and the Land of Israel.

Chag Sameach

Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 18, 2010.


A private flotilla, encouraged by Turkey's government, has started disembarking from Turkey on its way to Gaza. The purpose is to break Israel's partial blockade of Gaza. The Israeli government's likely response is not clear.

Using social networks, Israeli individuals have devised a plan to sail their own ships into international waters in front of Gaza, to confront the flotilla. The purpose is to get Israel's point of view heard.

The Israelis would lay on Hamas the responsibility for restrictions on Imports, because it kidnapped an Israeli soldier. The Israelis would explain that Turkey is doing this to gain popularity from the Arabs at Israel's expense (Arutz-7, 5/17/10).

Neither Turkey nor the Arabs would mind the latter argument. Nor is it the main Turkish reason. Turkey's government has become Islamist. That is the real reason.

Neither is the Israel's explanation for the partial blockade the main one. The main one is that Hamas is at war with Israel. A partial blockade is meant to crimp it and especially to block materials that otherwise Hamas uses for war. It is true that responsibility for the blockade is Hamas'. Make peace, end blockade.

The flotillas usually carry humanitarian goods. That is cover for pro-terrorist effort. Actually, Israel lets in humanitarian goods. But the flotillas also bear assorted anti-Zionist propagandists.

This enterprising move and counter-move could end tragically.


Hamas leader and bodyguards (AP/Hatem Moussa)

Hamas police expelled Palestinian Arabs from perhaps three dozen houses along the border of Sinai, and demolished them. Hamas said those houses were illegal, being erected on government property in Rafiah.

Masked Hamas policewomen beat fellow Arab women and children with clubs, until they evacuated the houses.

The sight of Arabs driving bulldozers into their houses angered the former residents, who compared this with what Israel does. Now they find Hamas, which seized power in Gaza in July, 2007, doing likewise.

Rafiah's mayor promised alternative housing, but Gaza's housing minister heard of no alternatives in planning (Arutz-7, 5/17/10).

Along with reports of Israeli expulsion of Arabs from illegal houses, I saw no reports of Israeli police beating Arab women and children. Israel's reasons have been that terrorists used the houses as havens, the houses were built without permits, or the houses were built on public land. No reader who objected to such expulsions by Israel, and who alleged that Israel grabbed land from Arabs, ever addressed the abuse of Arab theft of government land. Neither did they go further than allege Israeli land grabs. Want to take bets on whether they complain about Hamas demolition of Arabs' houses? Usually, the Arab-Israel conflict is a pretext for Israel-bashing, with real sympathy for suffering Arabs ignored.

Note that Hamas seized power. A reader recently commented that Hamas was elected. Didn't hear of the Hamas coup? Even if Hamas had elected the President, an election restricted to two terrorist organizations is not free; a terrorist government is not legitimate. Even if the election were free and the regime legitimate, democracy is much more. Democracy allows personal freedom of thought, association, and religion and protects minorities. Hamas violates all those major principles of democracy. Do not be deceived by the trappings of elections. Most dictatorships hold elections. Those elections do not make them democratic.


The Israeli watchdog group Ometz finds that the government is steering Arab shepherds to land owned by the Jewish National Fund [and managed by the State Land Authority]. Ometz is asking State Comptroller Lindenstrauss to investigate.

The scandal arose when a Jewish shepherd, Motti Peretz, found that the government was advertising the land only in the Arabic language and in Arab towns near Tur'an in the Galilee. The government distributed the land to nearby Arab villagers.

Mr. Peretz reports that Arab shepherds have been trying to drive him off his own land, rustling his herds and causing about $100,000 of damage to his facilities. He warned, "...we are likely to wake up one day and discover that while we hold tight to our borders, we've lost the land inside the country." (Arutz-7, 5/17/10).

The Jewish National Fund pooled the collective donations of Jews throughout the world to buy land for the Jewish people. The money was not donated for Arabs. Considering that Arab farmers are rustling, vandalizing, and attacking Jewish-owned farms extensively, while squatting on land not theirs, and having boasted that the "Galilee is Arab" and marched to the chant of "Death to the Jews," the criticism of the government is rather mild.


M.I.T. Professor Noam Chomsky was denied entry from Jordan to Israel. No reason given. He had hoped to speak at Bir Zeit University.

Prof. Chomsky describes himself as an anarchist. He justified Iranian nuclear arms development and the Hizbullah militia as warranted defense from Israeli threats and aggression. He said that if Iran initiated a nuclear weapon launching, it would be vaporized, and it does not want self-destruction.

The threat is that Israel has, he believes, nuclear armed submarines. The likely aggression, he asserted, is by Israel against Lebanon. A month after that assertion about Israeli aggression against Lebanon, Hizbullah attacked Israel, starting the second Lebanon war (Arutz-7, 5/17/10).

The Security Council established an armistice on the basis of Hizbullah not rearming south of the Litani River. Hizbullah has rearmed. What does Chomsky think of that violation, now that Hizbullah has proved itself an aggressor?

A reputedly moderate Iranian leader, former President Rafsanjani, said that in a nuclear exchange, Israel would be destroyed and only part of Iran would be destroyed, so Islam would win. Israel's submarines, if nuclear armed, would be for retaliation only, therefore hopefully not needed, therefore a deterrent. Iran, however, threatens to destroy Israel. Sometimes Iran qualifies that threat as only in self-defense. However, jihadists call the mere existence of Israel "aggression" against Islam. Iran commits aggression by proxy. Therefore, the qualification must be meant to offer a pretext that Iran is not threatening aggression against Israel.

Chomsky seems equally at home with neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers, Communists, dictators, and jihadists. His philosophy must not be anarchy but nihilism and antisemitism.

Is Chomsky's admission a matter of free speech? Israel is not obliged to let through an obvious enemy who would encourage opposition to Israel that, in the Palestinian Authority, takes a violent form and that elsewhere, is part of a drive to de-legitimize Israel.


Last year, 31,000 young Jews were brought to Israel for a special heritage and acculturation tour. Registration for this year is surpassing last year's.

Young IDF soldiers serve as mentors for these tourists, helping acclimate themselves. Many of the troops were themselves introduced to Israel by this program (Arutz-7, 5/18/10).


Israel is solving its water shortage. It just dedicated the third of five planned desalination plants. The new one is the largest in the world, producing 33 million gallons a year, 10% of Israel's needs. It is being located in Hadera, on the Mediterranean coast between Haifa and Tel Aviv. The plant is divided into two independently operating halves on an 18-acre site.

From sea water to thirst quencher, 35 minutes. The $400 million new plant separates water from salt by reverse osmosis. Reverse osmosis avoids burning fuel to evaporate pure water out of the brine. This is much more environmentally benign.

The output is expected to replenish the Lake Kinneret reservoir. Together with the two future plants, the plant would revive the dying Jordan River and Dead Sea (Arutz-7, 5/18/10).

Growing international water shortages once were thought liable to kindle new wars. This kind of solution may prevent such wars.

Years ago, Haifa U. economics Professor Steven Plaut, a source on the Arab-Israel conflict and especially jihad and lack of academic freedom in Israeli academia, wrote a paper on water. He explained how the government allotment formula distorted the natural market in favor of users of large volumes of water for small economic gain. That caused much of the shortage, that Israeli scientists tried to ameliorate by more efficient distribution technology.

Barry Chamish pointed out the Jordan peace treaty's cumulative lowering of Lake Kinneret water levels, by annual donation of 50 million cubic meters a year to Jordan. Jordanian hostility to Israel has grown since the treaty was signed.

Earlier reports expressed concern about the effect of injecting this different composition of water into the Dead Sea. Would the new mixture permit the same mineral extraction as currently done? No word on what is done with the plant's filtered out chemicals.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, May 18, 2010.

1. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/ Article.aspx?id=175810
"The Jihad of Israel's Academic Left against Freedom of Speech"
Right of Reply: Israel's academic Left on the attack
By Gerald Steinberg

Seizing on fringe amendments long dropped from the discussion, the campaign against a law to ensure the public's 'right to know' is distorted as a defense of free speech.

Claiming to be under unprecedented threat, the powerful Israel academic Left has launched fierce counter-attacks on enemies, real and imagined, among which I and NGO Monitor are included prominently. Prof. David Newman has lashed out repeatedly in The Jerusalem Post (" Bashing the academic left," April 14, 2009; "Who's monitoring the monitor?" November 30, 2009; " The politics of delegitimization" February 9; and again in a May 11 op-ed, coauthored with Sharon Pardo). After Newman was elected by like-minded colleagues as dean at Ben-Gurion University, he used an interview in the Post ("How to make the next Buber, May 11, 2010) to repeat the attacks.

Others involved in this ideological trench warfare include Prof. Daniel Bar-Tal. In a conference at Tel Aviv University, allegedly focused on academic free speech in the context of conflict, Bar-Tal condemned imagined "right-wing" McCarthyite threats to Israeli democracy and freedom of speech. The list of speakers also included, Prof. Galia Golan (Peace Now), Newman and Prof. Naomi Chazan, head of the controversial New Israel Fund. Chazan passionately wrapped herself in the bandages of victimization, while saying nothing when I presented the examples of how the NIF and partner organizations seek to silence their critics.

For this group, the right to free speech only applies to the Left. Their protests over the government's misguided attempt to keep radical Prof. Noam Chomsky from visiting Bir Zeit University would be more credible if they had not sought to silence Alan Dershowitz. The Harvard professor criticized the use of classrooms for political indoctrination at Tel Aviv University recently.

Other allegations in this campaign attack a fictitious version of a draft Knesset law on transparency for foreign government funding provided to Israeli nongovernmental organizations. A number of these NGOs support the Goldstone process, as well as the boycotts, divestment and sanctions campaign. But such core dimensions are all erased from the complaints. Instead, seizing on fringe amendments long dropped from the discussion, the campaign against a law to ensure the public's "right to know" is distorted as a defense of free speech.

NOT COINCIDENTALLY, many Leftist academics benefit directly from these highly secretive processes. For example, next week, Newman is a prominent speaker at a conference on "The External Relations of the European Union."

Looking at the program, observers might conclude that the participants were chosen from a narrow spectrum, perhaps to avoid serious academic debate. And coinciding with this conference, Newman's latest op-ed ("Doomed to succeed," May 11, with Sharon Pardo) lashes out yet again. This version warns darkly that "the recent attacks on the EU and its funding of civil society and human rights organizations and NGOs" will result in Israel's expulsion from "the family of nations for whom democracy and free speech constitute the most basic of common values."

In this demagoguery, the authors also hid the fact that this European money goes exclusively to leftist causes, and not to the wider Israeli civil society in whose name they claim to speak. Similarly, the use of the label "human rights organizations" often hides the abuses of these principles, as highlighted in the tendentious accusations of "war crimes."

More broadly, the very concept of an "academic Left" that Newman and others claim to defend is wrongheaded. Universities exist to teach students to think for themselves and to pursue knowledge, debunk myths and encourage debate, in contrast to the doctrinal nature of religion and ideology. An academic Left is as absurd as an academic Right — both ideological straitjackets are antithetical to the pursuit of knowledge and vigorous debate.

Such frameworks, which dominate European campuses and are spreading to the US, are inconsistent with complexity, open thought and substantive debate. This alternative universe has no room for intelligent people, including open-minded rationalists who seek a wide range of evidence, and analyze it openly and not through ideological filters.

All of this is entirely inconsistent with the values and professional ethics that provide the foundations for academic endeavors, and the privileged status of university professors. Instead of attacking the Right or Left for their views, real and imagined, we are supposed to welcome important debates to clarify complex issues needed to distinguish between scientifically supported theories and bunk. Unfortunately, in many areas, the ideological cant has overwhelms substantive debate.

The writer is on the political science faculty at Bar-Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor.

2. http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2176#printpreview
Degenerate Israeli Academics on the Rampage
Posted by Isi Leibler on May 18th, 2010

In the politically correct world of infantile leftism, words like sedition and disloyalty have effectively been erased from the political lexicon. Indeed, those daring to employ such terms are automatically smeared as "McCarthyite" or fascist.

But despite Israel being surrounded by Moslem nations whose primary objective is to eliminate Jewish sovereignty from the region, a growing minority of Israeli academics, funded by Israeli taxpayers and Diaspora Zionist philanthropists, exploit their universities as launching pads to undermine and delegitimize their own country. Some even promote global boycott, divestment and sanctions of the very institutions which provide their salaries. They teach their students that the state in which they live was born in sin, that Israelis behave like Nazis and morally justify the campaigns by our enemies to demonize and delegitimize us.

What magnifies this obscenity is that university administrators feel obliged to maintain the continued tenure of such immoral and anti-social degenerates on the grounds of academic freedom. Can one conceivably visualize any other institution providing salaries to employees actively working towards its destruction?

The issue came to a head at the recent meeting of the Board of Governors of Tel Aviv University when Marc Tanenbaum, a long-standing American donor and supporter, submitted a resolution calling on the University Senate to review conditions governing the status of academics indulging in "inappropriate behavior" such as promoting academic boycotts of Israeli universities, and recommending that academics be prohibited from listing their affiliation or academic titles whilst engaged in domestic or international forums of a political nature.

The president, Professor Joseph Klaffter, intervened. Grasping the microphone from Tannenbaum, he railed against the resolution and proclaimed that under his watch such a resolution would never be carried and demanded that it be withdrawn. When the initiators called for a vote, he refused to submit the resolution and adjourned the meeting — ironically, on the spurious grounds of academic freedom. Tannenbaum resigned and pledged to mount a campaign to highlight the undemocratic manner in which the university authorities were protecting those who were actively undermining the university and the State.

Regrettably, the TAU scenario represents a microcosm of how the loony left have imposed a regime of madness in this country. It is noteworthy that Anat Kam, who exulted in stealing classified IDF military information in the name of freedom of expression and attempted to present herself as a heroic figure, was educated at TAU, in a philosophy department in which professors called for a global boycott against Israel.

Examples of unacceptable behavior abound: the Chair of the Philosophy Department, Professor Anat Biletzki, is a close supporter of Asmi Bishari, the Arab MK calling for the dismantling of Israel; Biletzki also gathered signatures for a high school student petition justifying the right to refuse to serve in the army; Anat Matar, another lecturer at the philosophy department, initiated an (unsuccessful) campaign to deny the right of Col. Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, who headed the international IDF law division during the Gaza war, to lecture at its law school on the grounds that she would "justify the killing of civilians, including hundreds of children"; the Law School convened a conference on the subject of the alleged mistreatment of "political prisoners" at which one of the principal speakers was a former terrorist who had been sentenced to 27 years for throwing a bomb at Jews on a bus; Professor Adi Ophir campaigned to lobby embassies in Tel Aviv to impose sanctions against Israel to prevent atrocities in Gaza; TAU academics were prominent signatories in a petition backing the US Berkeley boycott against Israel; two professors, Anat Matar (who earlier participated in a London conference promoting a general and academic boycott of Israel) and Rachel Giora recently signed a petition denouncing The Boston Museum of Art for sponsoring an exhibit of Israeli medical and high tech achievements; etc etc.

Freedom of expression is a treasured feature of democracy but the dividing line must be drawn between academic freedom and breaching the law or indulging in subversive activity. Some liberals like Alan Dershowitz believe that students have "the right not to be propagandized by the classroom by teachers who seek to impose their ideology" and oppose the exploitation of universities by academics as anti-Israeli launching pads, but still insist that lecturers should never be limited even if they promote false narratives which poison the minds of the students and encourage them to hate their own country. Dershowitz believes that the danger of limiting such activity exceeds the damage that can be inflicted and is confident that ultimately truth will prevail.

But that does not justify those who delegitimize and demonize their country being provided tenure of employment. Setting aside the fact that in most societies under siege such behavior would be defined as subversive, I question whether for example such an approach would apply to an academic telling his students that Arabs are racially inferior or that Hitler's genocidal policies were justified. Or for that matter would academics insisting that the world is flat still be assured tenure in the name of academic freedom? I vouch that such people would soon be out of their jobs and justifiably so.

But in this crazy environment it is only the mad left which claims to be victimized when their unconscionable behavior is exposed. For example, in a petition signed by over 80 TAU faculty members, Alan Dershowitz was denounced for indulging in "incitement" for having described as "hypocritical Stalinists", academics like Rachel Giora and Anat Matar who support boycotts of Israel. Professor Hannah Wirth-Nesher went so far as to accuse Dershowitz of seeking to impose Teheran standards on Tel Aviv. Hebrew University Professor Shlomo Avineri observed that "the attempt to 'protect' those who belong to the left whilst employing McCarthy like methods against those associated with the right is nothing but hypocrisy, which has no place in academia".

Regrettably the State has failed to act in this area because it has become intimidated by the term academic freedom. Likewise out of fear of being labeled McCarthyites or fascists, the Knesset has also been loath to do anything.

I have no doubt that opinion polls would confirm that the overwhelming majority of Israelis would vehemently agree that there are red lines beyond which academic freedom should not be permitted to justify antisocial or subversive behavior such as calling for the boycott of the state.

Universities are the incubators in which future leaders of society are nurtured. It is surely elementary common sense to ensure that such institutions lead the way for constructive participation in civil life. Academics should not be above the law or permitted to engage in anti-social activities on the grounds of academic freedom.

It is a disgrace that we have reached such a deplorable state of affairs under successive governments. Such activities would never have been tolerated under the social democratic Mapai hegemony and I have no doubt that our founding Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, a genuine Labor Zionist, would have turned the country upside down to bring an end to such outrageous behavior.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, May 17, 2010.

It irks me a great deal to see how the Arabs, calling themselves "Palestinians," have managed to create a ring of lies and deception, they and the anti-Israel camp constantly use to justify their demands of Israel to 'de-occupy' the Palestinian land of the "West Bank." This kind of pressure the world has been putting on the State of Israel right to its sovereignty equals the pressure of a tourniquet around a bleeding wound. So who are these "Palestinians? What territory is referred to as the "West bank"?

Late in 1967 the "Palestinian" people was created out of whole new cloth. The name "Palestinians" is not mentioned in UN General Assembly Resolution 242, adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It is also not mentioned in Resolution 338, adopted on October 22, 1973 which called for a ceasefire in the Yom Kippur War. Reason being, until the Jordanian occupation of Judea, Samaria and part of Jerusalem ended in 1967, such a people never existed.

Jordan, that illegally occupied and ruled over Judea and Samaria for merely 19 years out of the historical four thousand years of Jewish history in the region, (Jewish history is 4,000 years old. The history of Judea and Samaria is older), applied the term "West Bank." The fact that the "Palestinians," aka Arabs, insist on using the term "West Bank" means that they in fact accept Jordanian rule as legitimate and not an illegal occupation. In turn, that implies that they are the same people as that other oh-so-ancient people on the East Bank of the Jordan River, the "Jordanians." And that is a fact. These Arabs are literally brothers and cousins of the Jordanians.

The "Palestinians" hold to historical revisionism according to which they claim they are the descendants of the Philistines, after whom the Roman Emperor Hadrian named the land. History attests otherwise. The [real] name is Philistines; they were the people who occupied the southern coast of Canaan and from time to time, they even occupied a greater piece of land. Nebuchadnezzar of the Chaldean Dynasty, the ruler of Babylon at that time, dispersed the Philistines. They resettled and totally assimilated and vanished. Moreover, the Israelites who entered the Promised Land called them "Philistine," in Hebrew, "Plishteem.". The name " Plishteem" in Hebrew means "invaders." Till today, the Arabs, calling themselves "Palestinians," do not know the history of those ancient people after whom they named themselves.

"Palaestina" is a Latin word that comes from the Greek term "Palistia," which means a wrestler. This odd term was used by the Greek invaders to refer to the Jews who were, in that period called Yisrael, a term that comes to Jews from their Torah, the "Old Testament." The name Yisrael relates to the biblical story of Jacob who wrestled with the angel and was then renamed by G-d Yisrael. The Greek term "Palistia" is the translation from the Hebrew word Yisrael, which means, one who wrestles with G-d, referring to Jacob, who G-d renamed Yisrael.

It is fascinating to know how history, referring to the Jews, is recorded with the name "Palistia." The Greeks came to be long after the Israelite kingdom was divided and also after the exile of the Kingdom of Israel, leaving in the areas only the Kingdom of Judea.

It is also possible that centuries before, to distinguish themselves from the Northern Tribes, who, collectively, named themselves "Yisrael [Israel]," the members of later to be the Kingdom of Judah, had already identified themselves as "Yehudim."

The fact is that the very name "Palestine" has no meaning, except with reference to the Jews. The Roman Emperor Hadrian gave the order to destroy the Jewish land the way the Romans destroyed Carthage. He invented and renamed the land "Syria Palaestina" "so that the name of Judea the Rebellious be remembered no more." This seems to mean that Hadrian named the land after the Philistines — Plishteem, the most hated of all the historical oppressors of the Jews, and did not use a nickname that referred to the Jews themselves.

The "Palestinians" claim they have a long history in the land of Israel. This is fallacy. Such claim has no historical documentation. Today, the "Palestinians" are calling themselves by a Latin name, which is the language of the Crusaders. One should raise the question: what did these ancient people, the "Palestinians," call themselves before the Roman Emperor Hadrian coined the name "Palaestina," under which the Romans buried the name Israel with the hope it would be forgotten and disappears forever?

Regardless of what Hadrian's reasons were, by the time the Romans came to be, the Philistines had long ago (approximately 700 years) disappeared from the historical record of the region. Doubtfully Hadrian even knew of them. What he did know was the Greek legacy of the region, in particular the language of the Greeks that, at the time of the Romans, was commonly spoken in Judea. He also must have known that the Greeks referred to the Jews in a derogatory manner as the "Palistia." Historically, using the name "Syria Palaestina" for the region makes more sense than naming it after the long dead people, the Philistines, who, in all likelihood, Hadrian had no understanding of their historic role.

Reference to the Greek origin of the term Palistina comes from the article "The Meaning Of Palestine" by Norman Cohen (Aug. 2007)
(http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2007/08/ meaning-of-palestine-by-norman-cohen.html) adapted from an article by David Jacobson (June 2001) titled "When Palestine Meant Israel" published in the Biblical Archaeology Society Review.

In either case, the name was not given because of a distinct people by that name inhabiting the country.

From these historical facts we see that the term "Palestinian" NEVER referred to anyone except the people called Yisrael who, today are called Jews. The term Jews lumps all surviving members of the ten tribes of Yisrael into the tribe of Judah who inhabited the land granted by G-d to Judah.

After the Persian Empire overthrew Babylonia, in 538 BCE, the Persian Cyrus the Great gave the Jews permission to return to their Yehud Province. As noted in the Biblical accounts of Jehoiakim, Ezra and Nehemiah, more than 40,000 Jews said to have returned Home and they re-built their Temple in Jerusalem. In the generations that followed they were called Yehudi from which the term Jew derives.

The State of Israel real boundaries

In reality, the historic Eretz Yisrael-the Jewish State's boundaries encompassed much greater land than the present State of Israel.

If one reads the Torah, the First Five Books of the Old Testament, and other Canonical books dating from the "Biblical" Period, one clearly understands that the land of the Jews extended along the Mediterranean shores, well into Lebanon to the north and to the south-west from below what is known as Gaza Strip. The ancient Land of Israel included much of what is today Lebanon to the north, it incorporated all of the Golan Heights, extending in the direction of Damascus to the north-east, extended well into Jordan to the east and all the way down through the Gulf of Aqaba to the east-south.

The argument that Sinai belongs to Egypt is historically utter nonsense. Though it is not clearly known to where, in the Sinai Peninsula, the boundaries or the Jewish Land precisely reached, those borders clearly were more expansive than the current dividing line is marked.

As for the whole of the State of Israel, along its prejudice against Jews, the world has conveniently forgotten that the original League of Nations Mandate for "Palestine", known as the promised Homeland for the Jews, incorporated all the land out of which Trans-Jordan was later carved and the Golan Height detached from, all without even asking its proprietor, the Jews, approval.

Then, after extracting a country called Trans-Jordan out of the legal Land of Israel, the British went on to divide and divide again the promised Jewish Homeland. Ultimately, the land of the Jews became a thin sliver of land west of the Jordan River.

After Israel's 1948 Declaration of Independence, while Arabs remained living among Jews in the new State of Israel, Jews were expelled from all the land Jordan occupied. The world wants to whitewash and forget the fact that since before the Roman times Jews lived in all of that land and over their long history there they never relinquished the land to any of the many invaders. It was the Jews, not the Arab invaders, who were forcibly expelled from their land.

As for the land these Arab "Squatters'" claim as their own, that too is a thief of history. For the most part the present Muslims living in the land of Eretz Yisrael-the Land of Israel have their family origin in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt and other Arab lands. Most of them arrived to the land when the early Zionists began settling, the largely un-occupied land, acquired from Ottoman-Turks' absentee owners. The Arabs came as laborers seeking work in the early stages of development of farming and industry the Jews were building. These Arab people are no more "Native" to the land than the Eskimos.

The "Palestinians" are a population of immigrants, no less than the Jews, and from the same period. The British, Perfidious Albion mandate, severely restricted Jewish immigration while it permitted unrestricted Arab immigration into the Mandate of Palestine. The "Palestinians" also include Bosnian Muslims brought in by the Turks in order to prevent the immigrant Jews from becoming a majority in the Land.

Factually, the "Palestinian" people have no history, no culture, no language and no religion of its own. They do not even have a genuine credible name. They call themselves by a name from the language of the Crusaders, whom they hate and revile daily.

Sadly, the world has bought into the Arab Narrative that presents the Arabs as the victims of oppression by Jews. This false image is daily reinforced by the contemptible, blatant actions of the UN and the media that has taken upon itself to re-write Jewish history in order to conform to the Arab Narrative. Occasionally, this narrative is pierced by facts. One such case is that in areas the Arab control their policy is to systematically destroy archaeological evidence of Jewish existence in the biblical period. Regrettably, such facts get reported in the global media as an odd and insignificant item. The notion that such behavior is part of the Arabs' wider systematic effort to erase Jewish existence evidences in their ongoing efforts to strengthen their deceptive claim to the land, is never published and seen in the biased media.

It's a tragedy that Jews don't know the real " Palaestina" story, the real story of the Land of the Jewish Nation. Even Israelis, including their leadership, don't know it.

There are indeed grim consequences for forgetting Jewish history. One of them is that others, standing in the wings, will claim the history of the Jewish Nation as their own.

It is long past the time for Jews to assert the truth, in particular first to other Jews and then the world at large. The failure of the Jews to do so until now has given the Arab invader the opportunity to claim Jewish history as their own, and today most of the world and its media buy into that false reinvented history.

From here on, when Israel negotiates with the "Palestinians" it must insist on negotiations that are based on facts, not hallucination.

The real nineteen year "occupation" of Judea and Samaria, aka "West Bank," ended with the Six-Day War in June, 1967. That was when the illegal occupier, Jordan, lost the war and withdrew its presence from the "West Bank" and the names Judea and Samaria came into use again. Save for Britain and Pakistan, for nineteen years the entire world regarded Jordan an occupier and its presence west of the Jordan River illegal.

The United Nations Resolution 181, the Partition Plan for Future Government of Palestine, adopted by the General Assembly and approved on 29 November 1947, does not contain the term "West Bank." It consistently and exclusively refers to "Judea" and "Samaria." Judea means the land of the Jews. The term "West Bank" did not exist in 1947. It was an invention of the illegal occupier, the Arabs. The Arab effective propaganda of lies and deception has served their goal well and today the world insists on referring to the Judea and Samaria area as the "West Bank."

It is no longer about land for peace, land for food, or land for fuel. It is about the Jewish State of Israel, about Israelis and the facts, based on truth only.

  • I dedicate this article to Yaakov Golbert, Roy Brahen, Paul Ross, "Radio Rote" and Shmuel HaLevi, who assisted me in putting it together.

    This was posted at
    http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2010/05/ palestinians-aka-arabstinians.html

    To Go To Top
    Posted by Noam Bedein, May 17, 2010.

    Recent protests by Ashkelon residents and the local PTA in demanding full rocket protection for school buildings across the city put us at the Sderot Media Center, in a moral dilemma. Should we join in their struggle?

    On one hand, we fully understand and identify with Ashkelon's population of 120,000 residents who battle for school protection which could save lives from expected Gaza missile attacks. On the other hand, we cannot help but ask, should this struggle be for protection of the city or for the cessation of the threat of aerial attacks from Gaza?

    Only last week, a rocket exploded in south Ashkelon, bringing to 349 the number of rockets and missiles fired into Israel since the cease fire stopped Israel's three week incursion into Gaza in January 2009.

    Will protecting the city stop the rockets?

    It is clear to everyone that it will not.

    Building shelters in Sderot

    At the Sderot Media Center, our agency has consistently reported on the struggle to get to the Israeli government to provide appropriate shelter for Israeli communities along the Gaza border.

    Back in April 2007, the SMC staff, in collaboration with researchers at Sapir College, conducted an investigation into the shelter protection in Sderot and the western Negev. The investigation was accompanied by the local PTA of Sderot, who demanded that decision makers and the Israel High Court fortify the 24 schools in Sderot and the surrounding area.

    The findings of our research, published on the Israeli news website NEWS1.co.il, headed by investigative journalist Yoav Yitzchak, highlighted significant failures pertaining to shelter policies in Sderot.

    The report showed that out of the 57 shelters in Sderot, 25 did not have running water or electricity.

    Sufficient protection for schools was also lacking, with protection provided only for school children under the age of nine.

    Schoolchildren in Sderot and the Gaza-border communities were expected to race from unprotected classrooms in which they were learning, to a shelter within 15 seconds of the siren sounding.

    To us, this was inconceivable at the time.

    Indeed, until two years ago, a nine-year-old boy was expected to study in an unprotected classroom even during the worst of rocket escalations, when 10-12 rockets would strike Sderot throughout the day. When the 'Color Red' siren sounded, this nine-year old student and 80 other schoolchildren would run through the school hallways, hoping to reach a protected space within 15 seconds or less.

    Like the shelters in Sderot, the Color Red warning system is not foolproof.

    There were situations when both shelters and the siren system did not suffice — the last person killed by a Qassam in Sderot, was killed in a direct hit, when no Color Red siren activated.

    Dependence on an electronic system to sound off warnings and bomb shelter protection to keep out rocket shrapnel is not a long term solution to the problem, even if these devices do save lives.

    Even the reliability of the shelters is now questionable. The shelters built for schools in Sderot can withstand up to three kilograms of explosives.

    Today the Qassam and grad missiles produced in Gaza carry anywhere from 12-20 kilograms of explosives, sometimes even more, which no school shelter in Sderot can withstand. At the end of the day, these shelters can do nothing to prevent the heavy psychological trauma and PTSD symptoms among Sderot's younger generations as children and adults, which are a direct result of rocket fire.

    Results from the Sderot bombshelter investigation

    Thanks to the bombshelter investigation initiated by The Sderot Media Center, pressure was applied on Knesset decision makers to introduce some changes. These investigative reports were translated into English and disseminated internationally as well.

    What resulted was that several overseas Jewish organizations in England turned to the Israeli embassy in London and demanded accountability. The Knesset took notice and a dialogue ensued with the spokesman for the Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, who invited our staff to a meeting at the Knesset, where we discussed the budget for school protection in Sderot and the western Negev.

    Eighteen months ago, the government approved a law determining that every community, kibbutz or city that is located 4.7 km away from Gaza, will receive government funding for shelters including educational institutes within that range

    This happened following the recommendation of the defense establishment and after a direct query from the PM office.

    Today it's Ashkelon, tommorow it will be...?

    So what range from Gaza is fighting for shelter fortification?

    The city of Ashkelon is located 15-20 kilometers from Gaza. Massive missile attacks on the city began in March 2008.

    Countless Iranian Grad missiles which can damage a radius of up to 300 meters, repeatedly struck strategic areas across the city including Ashkelon's industrial zone, which provides more than 70% of Gaza's electricity.

    One of the worst rocket attacks took place on an outdoor shopping mall, where Dr. Mirela Siderer, a gynecologist who was invited to testify along with me, before the UN's Goldstone Commission, was severely injured, as well as a baby and young mother and 90 other people.

    During Operation Cast Lead, an Ashkelon school was also directly hit in a rocket strike.

    So what do we do now?

    If Ashkelon is fortified, then every city, kibbutz and community located within the 20 km radius of Gaza will have to be protected as well. And if Ashdod and Be'er Sheva will be in range in the next missile escalation, then these major cities will need fortification?

    The total cost for government fortification of only Sderot and Gaza, is about half a billion dollars.

    Ashkelon is both a strategic and goal of Hamas.

    Ashkelon is far larger and more populated than any other area Hamas has struck before so frequently.

    Hitting Ashkelon is also popular in Gaza since Ashkelon is built on the ruins of the Arab village of Majdal, whose descendants now live in UNRWA camps.70% of the Gaza population live in UNRWA refugee camps, who are kept there under the premise and promise of the right of return to the places like Majdal.

    Today, security officials estimate that rockets fired from Gaza can reach as far as Tel Aviv.

    As the rocket threat spreads across Israel, including the southern, northern and western parts of the country, a solution must be sought that puts an end to the rocket and missile threat that plagues Israel. The solution does not lie in "fortifying Israel". The challenge for Israel is to solve the problem in Gaza — not in Ashkelon.

    Noam Bedein is a photojournalist, lecturer and founder/director of Sderot Media Center. He has conducted briefings and tours for government officials, diplomats, foreign press, and students from around the world

    This article was translated by Anav Silverman.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, May 17, 2010.

    A leading international Arab newspaper has hailed U.S. President Barack Obama for officially removing the description "Muslim terrorist" as part of his campaign "to reach out to the Muslim world." The op-ed did not note the radical Muslim bacgkround of the terrorists and reasoned they are equal to other terrorists whose religion is not connected with their acts.

    Osman Mirghani, the deputy editor-in-chief of 'Al-Sharq Al-Awsat,' which is owned by a Saudi Arabian company and published in London, wrote an op-ed last week under the headline "Why Didn't Obama Mention Islam?." The Obama administration has broken from the Bush government's policy of using the term "Islamic terrorism" in official documents and "no longer [is] responding to extremist voices" that call for targeting home countries of terrorists, he explained.

    He said the president is carrying out his pledge in his "reaching out to Muslims speech" at Cairo University in June 2008. Regarding Obama's statements on the botched Times Square bombing, the editor praised President Obama for not once referring to prime suspect Faisal Shahzad's being Muslim and for not "mentioning Islam in discussing the terrorist operation."

    The same approach was taken after the failed Christmas Day bombing by Nigerian Muslim Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalib. "Obama spoke about the detained terrorist as a member of the Al-Qaeda organization but he did not speak about him being a Muslim,' Mirghani wrote. "Even when he spoke about Al-Qaeda, Obama noted that it was not the first time that the network had targeted America, ignoring the links that were made in the past between the organization and Islam or when it was put in the context of 'Islamic extremism.'"

    Similarly, after the Fort Hood, Texas attack by a Muslim terrorist who murdered 13 people last November, "President Obama 'cautioned against jumping to conclusions'" and did not refer to the terrorist's Arab origin or religion.

    The article did not mention that most, if not all, Arab terrorists are indoctrinated by Muslim extremism. Instead, the editor argued that describing terrorists as Muslims actually provokes more terror. "There is recognition today of the fact that terrorists are benefiting from the creation of an anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim atmosphere after any terrorist operation, and that issuing statements or taking steps that target Muslims employed by extremist groups further spreads hostility against the U.S., the West, and even moderate Islamic states," he reasoned.

    Th writer argued that "the identity of the terrorist does not necessarily implicate the country he belongs to, in the same way that other adherents of the religion the terrorist follows should not be condemned."

    He accused former President George W. Bush of being "captive to the Big Stick policy and slogans of 'you're either with us or against us,' which caused the popularity of the U.S. to wane, not only in the Islamic world but in numerous countries around the world." In contrast, he continued, "The new president has extended his hand to the Islamic world,... and the tendency to link every terrorist operation to the religion of the perpetrator has disappeared."

    Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu is a writer for Arutz-7, where this story appeared today.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 17, 2010.

    Tomorrow night at sundown we begin Shavuot, the festival that marks our coming to Sinai and receiving of the Torah. It is traditionally a time for all-night study, and a time for marking who we are as a people and what our purpose on this earth truly is.


    I didn't want to go into the holiday without having written. And yet I am finding it difficult to write, because it seems I deliver so much news that is heavy, and gets increasingly so.


    Before I move to some of that news, I want to share the link to the Arutz Sheva "Tamar Yonah Show" from Sunday. I was interviewed with regard to what the PLO and the PA are truly like. Don't know how long this will be up.
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/ News.aspx/2212


    Saeb Erekat, chief PA negotiator, delivered a talk to the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv on Sunday. If we examine his words — which are cloaked in conciliation and "longing" for peace — we can see very readily what the PA position is. He actually said:

    "We, as Palestinians, decided to give Mitchell, Clinton and Obama a chance...I talk with Mitchell about the core issues.

    "There's no need for negotiations. There is a need for an agreement. All the alternatives are on the table. This is the moment of truth. We are all experiencing birth pangs. We need leaders ready to make sacrifices. My options are two states according to the 67 borders, with territory exchanges and security arrangements. If you've come to the conclusions that you can't offer this because you don't have anyone to rely on — I'm not afraid.

    "... Don't miss the opportunity... The negotiations are over. The time has come to decide. Not interim decisions, not future decisions, not past decisions. A final agreement."

    Translation: We don't need negotiations because that implies give and take, and compromise, and we're not into compromising. We will hold out for what we demand, and we're counting on President Obama to shove what we have demanded down Israel's throat. That's why we support "proximity talks." We get to deal with the US and not Israel. Either Israel takes what we demand, or we'll see what comes next.

    Words of genuine peace, no?


    Of course, he flatly refused to consider issues that have been Netanyahu demands: "We will not agree to a military presence in the Jordan Valley, we will not agree to (Israeli) control of water, we will not agree to settlements there or Israeli industry there."


    Then, please, see this by Khaled Abu Toameh, on the Hudson NY site, with regard to how the "proximity talks" actually benefit Hamas and Iran.

    "The Obama Administration is making a mistake forcing Israel and the Palestinian Authority to discuss 'core' issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, borders and settlements when the two sides are crying out that the gap between them on these explosive topics remains as wide as ever.

    "There is no doubt that the talks will fail. Mahmoud Abbas and Fayyad will be the first to pay the price because Palestinians will turn to them and demand that they stop talking about peace and coexistence with Israel. The only ones who will benefit from this are Hamas and its friends in Tehran and Damascus. The "proximity talks" will eventually undermine the moderates and boost the extremists among the Palestinians.

    "By insisting on putting the issues of Jerusalem and refugees on the table, the Obama Administration is placing Israelis and Palestinians on the course of collision."

    http://www.hudsonny.org/2010/05/middle-east- proximity-talks-benefit-hamas-and-iran.php


    The news from Barry Rubin — in his recent piece "Russian traps — and moves" — is grim as well.

    "If America's Middle East position collapses in the forest will anyone hear it? The answer is either 'no,' or 'just barely.' As I've predicted, Russia is coming back into the region and it is going to play a very bad role. Moscow is linking up with the emerging Islamist alliance of Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah.

    "Meanwhile, the Obama administration praises Russia for allegedly supporting sanctions against Iran. Russian support, at best, consists of throwing a bucket of fluid over the sanctions' plan to water it down.

    "Back in the real world — the Middle East, not Washington — let's begin with Syria. The Obama administration says it is going to pull Syria away from Iran, but the two countries are coming closer together. Syria's open goal is to pull the US away from Israel, but meanwhile it is finding still another ally to back its ambitions.

    "The recent visit of Russia's President Dimitry Medvedev with a huge entourage was a major step toward reestablishing the old Soviet-Syria relationship. There were broad economic talks, including the possibility of Russia building a nuclear reactor for the Syrian dictatorship."
    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/ Article.aspx?id=175747


    Have you picked up on the common denominator of these two "bad news" pieces? In both cases the situation is being fueled by an obtuse or damaging Obama policy.


    Defense Minister Barak, who seems to be working as Obama's buddy these days, has delivered a statement to his Labor party faction that literally makes me sick to my stomach:

    "The Americans are trying to organize sanctions against Iran, are busy stopping North Korea, and other countries like Somalia and Yemen.

    "Therefore, they expect Israel, too, as a friend, to mobilize in the areas in which it can help the overall effort — in other words, in a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

    "A fundamental change is required in our relations with the US. We cannot do this without a far-reaching political initiative on our part."

    He warned against Israel being depicted as refusing peace, and explained, "Our real challenge is to look over the small things and march toward the challenge and opportunity encased in Israeli political initiative towards negotiation and agreement."

    So, in order to be Obama's friend, and to be sure we are not "depicted" as "refusing peace," we should overlook "small things." What small things? Like a united Jerusalem and full expression of our rights to the land?

    This is the man who offered Arafat an incredible deal in 2000 (from our side, incredibly bad) and was turned down. But it seems he learned nothing. How can he see "opportunity" given what Erekat is saying (above)? How can he even pretend to see opportunity?


    And so, as Shavuot approaches, I pray that the Almighty will protect not only from our enemies, but from "leaders" such as this.


    Good news:

    There is a campaign begun, headed by Eli Avidar, to downgrade perks for Arabs in our prisons to conform with international law. (Yes, we do much more than is required by the Third Geneva Convention.) This is long overdue, and I hope the campaign succeeds.

    It is hoped that this will help to secure the release of Gilad Shalit: "If we do not cause a situation in which they [Arab families of those in our prisons] pressure their leaders...the chances to free Gilad will continue to diminish."


    Israel Military Industries has developed a rocket — named the Enchanted Spear — that can hit targets up to 40 kilometers (25 miles) away with a precision of 10 meters (32 feet). It can carry various heads and is constructed to destroy ground targets.

    More significantly, an Israeli start-up, Eltics Ltd, has developed the Black Fox Active Adaptive IR Stealth System.

    Night vision equipment is commonly used these days and is certainly in the possession of our enemies, such as Hamas. This technology renders helicopters, armored personnel carriers and ships invisible to thermal night vision systems and guided missiles.

    As was explained by Israel National News, "The equipment analyzes the thermal signature of the environment, and then screens the exact same signature on to plates fitted on to the machine."

    Pretty neat, and it would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of our having the advantage as we approach prospects of war down the road. The Black Fox is in the advanced prototype stage and developers are seeking additional funds.


    Let me end here with a YouTube video about Israel. I picked up this link on a site call "My Israel — Israel Sheli." It's in Hebrew, but you can readily get the sense of it without much language. Stunning and moving footage of our history — from Ben Gurion's declaration of a state, through early years of our founding, and our wars, to the present.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 17, 2010.


    Rioters threw stones, near An Nabi Salih. One of the stones struck an Israeli woman. An ambulance took her away. Police took away another of the rioters (IMRA, 5/15/10).

    Oops. Don't throw stones in glass houses. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

    The brief omitted who else was rioting, what they alleged to be their grievance, how they justified violence, and why only one was arrested.


    Jews where Arabs often drop rocks on them (AP/Sebastian Scheiner)

    Qassam news reports that Gaza is the most densely populated place on earth. Its density is estimated as 4,140 persons per square kilometer. IMRA notes that tThat compares with Tel Aviv's 7,134 persons per square kilometer.

    Gaza gained most of its population when Israeli forces expelled Arabs from their ancestral lands. [Actually, the Arabs fled from their failed attempt to expel the Jews from their ancestral lands. If the Arabs prefer to view the modern Zionist return from exile as relatively recent immigration, then one can reply that about three-fourths of the Arabs in the Palestine Mandate were relatively recent immigrants. The other fourth got there as a result of taking the country away from the Christians and Jews during the start of Arab imperialism.]

    Hamas vows to continue resisting the enemy so long as it continues arresting Palestinian Arab children and desecrating their holy places. [Hamas uses its people's children as human shields and weapons carriers. It does not care what happens to those children, and when they get killed, it makes anti-Zionist propaganda out of it, as if the deaths were not Hamas' fault for using human shields. Israel arrests youths who commit violence. No violence, no arrests. It makes more sense to blame the criminals for what they do than the police for arresting them.]

    [Desecration? No examples given. Palestinian Arabs destroyed Joseph's Tomb, attacked Rachel's Tomb, destroyed synagogues in Jerusalem and desecrated the Mt. of Olives cemetery in 1948, destroyed ancient Jewish artifacts in the Temple Mount, denied Jews access to other religious sites, and desecrate and vandalize the Hebron Jewish cemetery. Recently, when Israel announced plans to refurbish a couple of joint religious sites, Arabs rioted. Most accusations against Israel are slanderous, paranoid, and rabble rousing plots to destroy al-Aqsa mosque. The Muslim Arabs exploit their people's faith to rouse them under false pretenses. Somebody damaged a mosque in Judea-Samaria, recently, but the police have not determined who did it.]

    Hamas demands an "honorable" prisoner swap: an innocent Israeli soldier Shalit, whom the Arabs kidnapped for this ransom, in exchange for about a thousand convicted Arab terrorists (IMRA, 5/16/10).

    Honorable swap? Not according to common decency and not for Israel.


    Brazil Pres. Da Silva with Russian President (AP/Sergei Chinkov, Pool)

    The heads of Iran, Turkey, and Brazil revived and revised proposals that the UN previously accepted for a foreign enrichment deal.

    This time, Iran would ship fuel to Turkey, for enrichment into rods useful in Iran's medical nuclear reactor. Another difference between this and prior proposals appears to be that although Iran now has more radioactive material than before, the quantity to be swapped would not be increased from the prior deal to include all the additional material. Details not devised.

    The new proposal would make the U.S. fear to look unreasonable if it rejected it outright (Alexei Barrionuevo, Sevnem Arsu, NY Times, 5/17/10, A10).

    That is the purpose. Here is play acting all around. Iran, like North Korea and Saddam's Iraq, has practiced deception and phony negotiation for years. It has not earned trust. When sanctions seem about to be imposed, the regime switches from refusing to negotiate to negotiating to refuse.

    First, the details are withheld. Then they are negotiated. Then they are released but reneged on. Then they are agreed to, but other regime officials deny it. Then they are withdrawn. The obvious purpose is to stall for time, time during which development can proceed or be covered up. Iran draws nearer the finish line.

    Repeated instances of these tactics demonstrate their insincerity. Many in the West keep falling for the ruse. Will the West never mature beyond naivete?

    Governments that side with the scofflaw seize upon the pretext of a suggested new desire to accommodate the UN, to stop the drive for sanctions. The U.S. pretends to be driving for sanctions, but it is not driving hard or fast.

    One key requirement for preventing Iran's radioactive material from being turned into weapons grade fuel is effective international supervision. Turkey is Islamist, an ally of Iran. Brazil's President is anti-Western. One cannot trust partners of Iran to hold Iran harmless.


    Imam Hesham Shahaa of Munich urges his congregation to shun radical recruiters. He travels all over the world to bring young Muslims back from the brink of terrorism.

    Having experience with radical movements and knowing Islamic scripture, he shows young Muslims that the radical message is warped. They cannot meet his challenge to show him otherwise. Those who are too thoroughly indoctrinated to retain an open mind respond with death threats.

    So far, the controversial imam has had much success.

    German police encourage the Imam, but some German natives stereotype him as Osama (Squad Mekhennet, NY Times, 5/17/10, A11.)

    This development bears watching. It could take Muslims out of their state of violent war with the West. Would there still be a religious and political struggle?

    Radical Muslims spread their message by Internet. How about moderate Muslims countering that message, on a religious doctrine and document bases, also by Internet? How about classes on that message, to reach youths as a form of inoculation against being radicalized?


    A Pakistani-born, Muslim cardiologist of Stratford, Connecticut, Dr. Atique A. Mirza, has teamed up with Stratford police chief Mark Rinaldo, to detect incipient signs of terrorism before they mount to murder.

    Their fruitful collaboration developed along with the need for it and with trust between them. Chief Rinaldo wants to prevent crime, not persecute Muslims in general. Dr. Mirza does not want a general prejudice against Pakistani-Americans to grow among other Americans.

    Dr. Mirza founded the Pakistani American Association of Connecticut, now acting as liaison with police in 13 towns and increasing. He urges fellow Pakistanis to follow a message like what we New Yorkers hear in our subways, "If you see something, say something." Don't let a plot culminate in murder and recrimination.

    His wife, Faryal, an endocrinologist, now teaches about Pakistani culture, to detoxify impressions of it (Anne Barnard, NY Times, 5/17/10, A20).

    This seems to be a significant development. It appears to be the stage of taking civic responsibility in Americanization, following the stage of settling in. It is a long way from the original, mutual distrust.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Fiamma Nirenstein, May 17, 2010.

    This was written by Fiamma Nirenstein and appeared in Arutz-7 and is archived at
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/ 137557


    The attack against Israel by the Jcall document is inspired by a short-sighted view of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, the signatories of this appeal do not have the clear perception of the global physical and moral threat to which Israel is currently exposed. It is indeed incredible that intelligent and cultivated people like Alain Finkelkraut and Bernard-Henri Levy — instead of dealing with Iran that will soon keep the whole world under the threat of the range of its atomic bomb — play with the idea that Benjamin Netanyahu is the true hindrance to peace, that the essential obstacle to a resolution of the conflict is a reproachable attitude of Israel. The intellectuals who have signed the French manifesto ignore history and don't care about the help that it will give and is already giving to the unprecedented delegitimization threatening the life of Israel.

    Pushing Israel to concessions without rewards, simply means to surrender the enemy without any guarantee: the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza has produced disastrous consequences, the land Gush Katif inhabitants has been kicked out from, is since then a launching pad for missiles and terrorists; Ehud Barak's concessions in Camp David, designed to give Arafat practically everything he was asking for, led to the horror of the second Intifada, with its two-thousand people killed by suicide terrorists, shootings and rocket attacks; the evacuation of Southern Lebanon in 2000 strengthened the Hezbollah, supplied them with more than 40,000 missiles and led to the 2006 war.

    Finkelkraut, Henri Levy and their fellow signatories claim that they are concerned about the future and the security of Israel. But they actually ignore the basic element that has prevented success of any peace process, namely the Arab and Palestinian refusal to recognize the very existence of the State of Israel as a permanent nation-state in the Middle East. This all-encompassing rejection of Israel's right to exist is reflected day by day in the Palestinian and pan-Arab media.

    The attack against Netanyahu aims at breaking up his right wing coalition. But it actually never mattered whether an Israeli government was right or left wing: anyhow the Palestinians refused any proposal of peace.

    Israeli land concessions like the ones the French intellectuals advocate, will never bring peace. Only a cultural revolution in the Arab world can achieve it, but nobody asks for that, not even Obama, who devotes US great strength to pressure only Israel. This is the current fashion.

    Peace will not come because Israel becomes smaller

    Peace will not come because Israel becomes smaller. What will bring us closer to peace is if Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas stops naming public squares after mass-murderers like Hamas bombmaker Yehiya Ayash; if the Palestinians stop passing out candies when Jewish families are murdered by suicide bombers in restaurants; and when the Arab world accepts Netanyahu's modest request to recognize the State of Israel as the State of the Jewish people.

    This reality is ignored as well by the Israeli intellectuals who have signed a document attacking the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel, who wrote a very noble letter to support Jerusalem as the spiritual core and historical homeland of the Jewish people.

    This sadly politically correct epidemic is probably designed to give some oxygen to the defeated pacifist movement that is actually able only to crash against the rock of the Islamist hatred culture and to defame Israel. But in this approach there is no contribution to any better future for the Middle East: the world must find the courage to face the new Islamist frenzy that springs from Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas and points to the destruction of Israel. Iran and its allies are of course arming themselves with lethal weapons, not with vain words, like those who signed "The Call for Reason". But even words can kill and destroy.

    The signatories of the J-Call manifesto show a blatant ignorance of the extended hand policy adopted by Netanyahu since his Bar Ilan speech in June 2009, the ten-months settlements freeze, the lifting of many check points and the adoption of important measures to ease the Palestinian economy. And you can clearly see that the "Finkelkraut document" has an Obama flavour, a prissy and respectable trendy attitude intellectuals are often unable to say no. This makes possible nowadays to the increasing number of Israel's enemies to delegitimize the Jewish State by claiming that "even the Jews are with us". If this was the signatories's goal, they have indeed achieved it.

    Click here to sign

    With blessings from Hebron,
    David Wilder

    Visit Hebron
    www.hebron.com (English)
    www.hebron.org.il (Hebrew)

    You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Susana K-M, May 17, 2010.

    When Jews attempt to separate themselves from their brethren in order to curry favor with the outside world, we're in trouble.

    This was written by Emuna Braverman.


    There was a chilling book review in the Wall Street Journal. It described the early life of the now famous author, Irene Nemirovsky, who perished at the hands of the Nazis.

    In her earlier days, Nemirovsky has been a less-than-ardent supporter of her people. In fact she participated in a "rightist, ultra-nationalist and often anti-Semitic intellectual culture."

    At some point she converted to Roman Catholicism and married a man who had done the same. As the Nazi net began to close in around them, her husband penned a desperate letter to the Nazi ambassador in France, pointing out that "even though my wife is of Jewish descent, she does not speak of the Jews with any affection..." We are not like them (the other Jews), he was asserting.

    We are different. We are the good ones.

    We all know the end of the story. Hitler and his Nazi machine of extermination didn't care. He wasn't interested in your philosophy or your personal religious views. He didn't want to hear about your intermarriage or whether you raised your children as Jews or not. If you had even one-fourth Jewish blood, you were doomed in his eyes.

    It was, and is, a sobering thought. In a time of such targeted attacks on our people, it is excruciatingly painful to read about those Jews who tried to set themselves apart, who turned their backs on their people and to see the ultimate foolishness of their delusion. You might think we would have learned our lesson and recognize the need to stick together. It would be a logical conclusion but, unfortunately, an erroneous one.

    After Elie Wiesel took out his courageous full page newspaper ads in support of Israel (LINK to piece), another organization felt compelled to rebut his allegations, to suggest his support was unjustified, to openly avow and assert another side — a side critical of Mr. Wiesel, Israel, and by association, the Jewish people. This same group (under the ironic guise of being "pro-Israel") is constantly attacking Israel in the press and trying hard to differentiate themselves from those Jews who support the land. We are different, they are saying. We are not like them. We are the good ones.

    We need to be united against our external enemies and band together in order to reach our true spiritual potential.

    There very well may be legitimate criticisms of some of the actions of the Jewish state. There is plenty to debate. But if we have criticisms, let's make them internally. My concern is when dissent is made in public where the goal is not the betterment of the Jewish people but rather to demonstrate to the non-Jewish world at large one's lack of loyalty to the Jewish people and Israel. We are different. We are not like them.

    When we are governed by our concern for how the world will view us and an anxiety to make sure they don't link us with our brethren with whom we disagree, then we have lost our way. We are in danger of writing letters like Mrs. Nemirovsky's husband: I'm not one of those who believes in a united Jerusalem. I have no affection for the 'settlers.' That assertion of separation in order to curry favor with the external society is how the seeds of destruction are sewn.

    Our biggest strength is our unity. We are our own biggest enemies when we participate in our people's fragmentation. We leave ourselves open and vulnerable. This has been true throughout Jewish history.

    It's so painful to watch this unfold before my eyes, to see this played out alongside the saga of the life (and death) of Irene Nemirovsky. The desire of some to separate themselves from their people is painful.

    The disunity of our nation wounds. And to see my brothers and sisters (for they are our brothers and sisters) fall for such an illusion is an additional source of hurt. It took a Hitler to remind us that we are one.

    Sometimes only when we are attacked from outside armies do we band together. But wouldn't it better if we recognized our family through demonstrations of love and caring, through open discussion and sincere desire to find common ground? It doesn't matter how loudly or frequently we tell the world that we are different than our brethren, when anti-Semitism comes, we all share the same boat.

    We are now approaching the holiday of Shavuot. When the Jewish people encamped at the foot of Mount Sinai in preparation to receive the Torah, they exhibited an unprecedented unity. They were like "one person with one heart."

    This is the true secret to our success; only when we acted as one did we merit the Almighty's revelation and the gift of His Torah. We need to make our way back. We need to refocus our energies. We need to be united against our external enemies and band together in order to reach our true spiritual potential.

    Reading The Life of Irene Nemirovsky and observing the Jewish world today frightens me. It seems on the surface as if some things never change and some people never learn. And yet Shavuot is coming.

    And that unique experience of unity has been embedded in the spiritual fabric of the holiday. That palpable sense of a people with one clear purpose is available to us every year at this time. That is our hope.

    That is our opportunity. If only we can all reach out and grab it.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Steven Plaut, May 17, 2010.

    1. http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/17/ dershowitz-takes-on-tenured-extremists/
    Dershowitz vs. Tenured Extremists
    by Steven Plaut
    Article printed from FrontPage Magazine:

    There is no one who is so effective in upsetting the academic radical Left as Professor Alan Dershowitz from Harvard University. Dershowitz, "Dersh," h as long been the nemesis of the far Left, especially academic radicals. They like to blame him (falsely) for the firing of Norman Finkelstein from DePaul University. [Actually DePaul fired Finkelstein [1] because he had never published a single academic publication.] And Dersh's defense of America and of Israel drives them to conniptions. But it is not only the American academic Far Left that finds Dershowitz enraging.

    Suddenly, academic freedom of speech is the leading topic of discussion in Israel. Suddenly, the local newspapers and TV shows are filled with debates about "censorship" in academic institutions. Suddenly, everyone in Israel can see the anti-democratic nature of Israel's academic fifth column. And Israel owes Prof. Alan Dershowitz a debt of gratitude for exposing the damages of Israel's anti-Israel academic far Left, the academic copperheads who support the enemies of their country in time of war!

    Receiving an honorary doctoral degree at Tel Aviv University a few days ago, Dershowitz gave a dramatic and eloquent speech [2] denouncing anti-Israel radical academics. The entire speech can be read here [2]. Tel Aviv University is arguably the worst den of tenured extremists and academic communists in Israel.

    In the speech, Dershowitz defended the rights of extremist academics to exercise freedom of speech, or — in his words — the right to be wrong. But he also defended the rights of others to denounce and criticize far-leftist academics, something the Israeli semi-fascist Far Left has been attempting to suppress [3] and prohibit. Dersh explained that it is misleading when such people whine about being denounced. Sure, they claim they are only engaging in "criticism" of Israel. But to the contrary, Dershowitz described how these people are engaging in treason, delegitimizing Israel itself, calling for world boycotts of Israel, calling for Israel's annihilation, organizing campaigns of boycott against their own country and their own universities by foreign anti-Semites. Dersh named several Tel Aviv University anti-Israel extremists, including some in Boston that day attempting to organize a boycott of Israel's engineering university, the Technion, for being a "war machine."

    Dershowitz then denounced the Tel Aviv University Stalinist professor Shlomo Sand, who is really an expert on the French cinema, for composing a propaganda book. It claims not only that Israel has no right to exist but also that no Jewish people exists. Dershowitz denounced far-leftist McCarthyists for insisting that freedom of speech belongs only to people who agree with the Left. He denounced far-leftist professors at Israeli universities who harass and persecute students who dare to disagree with the leftist propaganda being force-fed them, comparing their behavior to those who sexually harass students. He denounced the in-classroom indoctrination conducted by leftist Israeli academics. He insisted that students too are entitled to academic freedom, and that includes the right to disagree with the leftist indoctrination by radical professors.

    The Tel Aviv University audience listening to Dershowitz repeatedly interrupted him with loud applause. But the members of the tenured Left squirmed in their seats. It did not take them long to open fire in retaliation.

    Within days, a group of Tel Aviv University professors denounced Dershowitz and challenged his right to exercise freedom of speech and to criticize them. A petition of anti-Israel radicals [4] and a few fellow travelers who teach at Tel Aviv University was collected (a handful of the signatories are not identified with the ultra-Left), and it was published on a pro-terror, radically anti-Israel, far-leftist website. Since then the web has been crawling with anti-Dershowitz smears on countless blogs.

    Those 46 Tel Aviv University faculty members signed the petition denouncing Dershowitz for mentioning by name two of TAU's most radical anti-Israel academics and their seditious boycott-Israel activities: Rachel Giora and Anat Matar [5]. How dare Dershowitz mention TAU academics by name, the petition shrieks and moans!

    By name, you say? The very same Anat Matar composed and distributed photo and personal information [6] about an Israeli army officer, with the banner headline "War Criminal" and "Murderer," in a poorly disguised call for the officer to be harmed. The Israeli Attorney General is now investigating Matar for this (she has been arrested before for her violent behavior in anti-Israel protests.)

    And let us take a better look at just who these 46 great "defenders of academic freedom and freedom of speech" are, these people who denounce Dershowitz because he dares to exercise his own freedom of speech.

    Among the signers of the petition, claiming that Dershowitz's words "remind them of the darkest regimes in human history" when he criticizes anti-Israel extremists, are:

    Prof. Chaim Gans of TAU law school, a far-leftist anti-democratic extremist who organized a petition demanding that an IDF woman colonel be prevented from teaching a course in the school because he did not like her opinions. See this [7].

    Prof. Gadi Algazi, a Marxist historian at TAU who recently led a march of Arabs supporting Hezb'Allah terror — see this [8].

    Prof. Uri Hadar, a psychology professor, who recently organized a conference at TAU to support the Hamas and Hezb'Allah. See this [9].

    Prof. Daniel Bar-Tal, an educational psychologist and an anti-Zionist Marxist extremist, who produces anti-Jewish propaganda for the UN and thinks Zionism is the obstacle to peace. See this [10].

    Dr. Gerardo Leibner, who teaches history, a communist and anti-Zionist agitator. See this [11].

    Dr. Orly Lubin, literature lecturer and anti-Israel propagandist. See this [12].

    Prof. Adi Ophir, an extremist philosophy professor, who recently led the "Israel Apartheid Week" pogrom in the UK. See this [13].

    Prof. Anat Biletzki, philosophy professor, a leader in the Boycott Israel movement. See this [14].

    Prof. Moshe Zuckerman, history professor, anti-Israel extremist. See this [15].

    Judd Ne'eman, a rabidly anti-Israel film professor. See this [16].

    In addition, the two professors who organized the violent protests at TAU a few years back against the opening of a synagogue on the campus (but have no problem with a mosque) are on the list.

    The stories about censorship filling the Israeli newspapers also concern the censorship of the governors of Tel Aviv University by the new president of the University, Prof. Joseph Klafter. He refused to "allow" the [17] Governors of his own university to take a vote in their own plenary session. In part inspired by Dershowitz' speech, those Governors sought to condemn Tel Aviv University's anti-Israel academic extremists and tenured traitors. In response to the censorship by Klafter, one leading Governor and donor to the university has resigned [17] from the Board and he is likely to be followed by others. Under the "constitution" of Tel Aviv University, the Board of Governors is supposed to be the supreme power in control of the university, with the president subordinate to it. But that is obviously not how the institution is run.

    Meanwhile a Tel Aviv University psychology professor, far leftist Carlo Strenger, seems to be acting as the button man for TAU President Joseph Klafter. Strenger has a long track record of promoting the far leftist [18] agenda, and is on record opposing freedom [18] of speech for non-leftists because its exercise by non-leftists constitutes McCarthyism and "incitement." (For years, Israeli leftists have used the term "incitement" to refer to any opinion with which they disagree) Strenger attacked Tel Aviv University Governors in the Israeli media for their attempt [19] at criticizing the school's tenured extremists. He also accused the Governors of lying, something that no doubt will now cost the university in terms of its ability to raise donations.

    While writing a toady defense of the worst radicals at Tel Aviv University, including the notorious anti-Semite Sand [20], Strenger badmouthed Dershowitz and the Governors. He denied that Sand's "book" [21] is anti-Israel or anti-Semitic at all, insisting it is nothing more than a call for peace. Actually Sand's Invention of the Jewish People book carries crackpot themes generally to be found [22] on Neo-Nazi web sites about how today's Jews are imposters and converted "Khazars [23]." Naturally, Strenger also denied that any TAU professors ever indoctrinate students or harass non-leftist students. He found that "only" 140 [19] students at Tel Aviv University have filed complaints about being harassed when they disagree with leftist faculty members. And that is just a tiny proportion of the entire student body, insists Strenger.

    Strenger claims that the media misunderstood what Dershowitz said in his speech, and that Dersh's comments about bullying professors from the Left were actually referring to professors in the US and not to any at TAU. That should give Dershowitz a great belly laugh. Whether Klafter is behind Strenger's trashing of the TAU governors and toady piece is unclear.

    Klafter and Strenger have also been joined by Prof. Galia Golan, an extremist professor of "Government, Diplomacy and Strategy." She was among the founders of the leftist protest group "Peace Now," which seeks Israeli capitulation to Arab demands. Writing on the YNET news site, Golan denounced those who dare to criticize [24] the academic far Left. She repeated the familiar McCarthyist charges — that the exercise of freedom of speech by critics of the Left produces violence and so must be suppressed. A bit amusingly, she accused those who criticize the Left of being "rich." (If only that were so.) She singled out an Israeli Zionist student organization, Im Tirtzu, for condemnation because it dares to criticize far-leftist NGOs and professors.

    Golan writes:

    "It is not clear just what is behind the present attack on Israeli civil society and academia. Is it simply a misguided campaign by a small, inconsequential (but rich) minority on the extreme right? Is it the lashing out of a weak government responding to outside pressure and criticism? Or, is it, more likely, the expression of an ideology now in power — that of the right-wing, the Likud and its supporters? ...The Knesset (parliament) committee called upon the Council for Higher Education to take the report of Im Tirzu and investigate what Committee Chair Zvulun Orlev called "subversive and anti-Zionist." These (and more) are not isolated items. They add up to a policy, a campaign designed to cripple civil society, stifle criticism and eliminate opposition. They endanger the very essence of liberal democracy and of a free society, namely pluralism — of thought, deed, and expression."

    Israel's tenured Left is displaying growing hysteria. It is being targeted, monitored and exposed by watchdog groups, similar to the Campus Watch [25] group that operates in the US. Campus Watch is also commonly denounced in hysterical terms as "McCarthyist" by the McCarthyist Left.. The main group in Israel exposing the extremists is Isracampus [26]. A second watchdog is NGO-Monitor [27], which exposes the political bias and extremist agendas in anti-Israel Non-Government Organizations. Israeli leftist professors, led by TAU's Daniel Bar-Tal and Ben Gurion University's David Newman, have repeatedly issued calls for the suppression of these groups, supposedly in the name of freedom of speech and democracy.

    The hysterical reactions by people like Golan and the tenured signers of the anti-Dershowitz petition show how effective these watchdog groups are in exposing the seditious activities of Israel's academic fifth column. Those who expose and monitor the seditious Left are the real guardians of Israeli democracy.


    [1] DePaul fired Finkelstein: 1038-400b-b112-87c09c917227

    [2] Dershowitz gave a dramatic and eloquent speech:
    http://www.haaretz.com/full-text-of-alan- dershowitz-s-tel-aviv-speech-1.289841

    [3] attempting to suppress:

    [4] petition of anti-Israel radicals:

    [5] Rachel Giora and Anat Matar:

    [6] distributed photo and personal information:
    http://www.isracampus.org.il/Extra%20Files/ IsraCampus.Org.il%20-%20Seth%20Frantzman% 20-%20TAU%20Ivory%20Towers%20of%20Critique.pdf

    [7] this: http://thejewishpress.blogspot.com/ 2009/01/assault-on-academic-freedom-by-tel-aviv.html

    [8] this:
    http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ TAU%20-%20Gadi%20Algazi%20-%20joins%20demon strators%20carrying%20Portrait%20of%20Nasrallah.htm

    [9] this:
    www.isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ TAU%20-%20Ben%20Dror%20Yemini%20blasts%20 TAU%20over%20Hamas%20Conference.htm

    [10] this:
    http://www.isracampus.org.il/third%20level% 20pages/Editorial%20-%20Alon%20Ben%20Shaul% 20-%20Daniel%20Bar-Tal.htm

    [11] this:
    www.isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ Editorial%20-%20Joel%20Amitai%20-%20Gerardo%20 Leibner%20-%20Battles%20against%20Judaizing.htm

    [12] this:
    http://www.isracampus.org.il/third%20level %20pages/Editorial%20-%20Lee%20Kaplan%20- %20TAU%20-%20Orly%20Lubin.htm

    [13] this:
    www.isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ Editorial%20-%20Alon%20Ben%20Shaul%20-%20Adi %20Ophir%20and%20Ariella%20Azoulay%20-%20 The%20Defaming%20Duo.htm

    [14] this:
    www.isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ Editorial%20-%20Lee%20Kaplan%20-%20Anat%20 Biletzki.htm

    [15] this:
    www.isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ TAU%20-%20Moshe%20Zuckerman%20-%20Azmi% 20Bishara.htm

    [16] this:
    www.isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ Editorial%20-%20Alon%20Ben%20Shaul%20-%20 Yehuda%20Neeman.htm

    [17] refused to "allow" the:

    [18] Strenger has a long track record of promoting the far leftist:
    www.isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ TAU%20-%20Carlo%20Strenger%20-%20I%20 accuse.htm

    [19] Strenger attacked Tel Aviv University Governors in the Israeli media for their attempt:
    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/ strenger-than-fiction-a-triumph-of-academic-freedom-at- tel-aviv-university-1.290205

    [20] anti-Semite Sand:
    http://www.isracampus.org.il/third%20level% 20pages/TAU%20-%20Shlomo%20Sand%20-%20 justifier%20of%20Arab%20terrorism.htm

    [21] Sand's "book":
    http://jiw.blogspot.com/2009/10/shlomo-sand- tel-aviv-uni-ppromotes-his.html

    [22] carries crackpot themes generally to be found:

    [23] and converted "Khazars:

    [24] denounced those who dare to criticize:

    [25] Campus Watch: http://www.campus-watch.org/

    [26] Isracampus: http://www.isracampus.org.il/

    [27] NGO-Monitor: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/

    2. Israel accidentally and mistakenly did the correct thing yesterday. It decided to prevent anti-Semite Stalinist professor Noam Chomsky from entering the country. At first it looked like Chomsky was being Finkelsteined. Norman Finkelstein (and Richard Falk) had earlier been blocked from entering Israel due to their intimate relations with terrorists, and Chomsky himself has held pow-wows with Nasrallah, the head of the Hezb'Allah. Chomsky is being cheered on by Neo-Nazi Norman Finkelstein. See

    Well, now the Israeli authorities are saying it was all a misunderstanding and in any case they would let Chomsky enter if he just landed at Ben Gurion Airport.

    Now if anyone is looking for a great reason why Israel should legitimately prevent Chomsky from setting a paw on the Holy Land, how is this?:

    In defending Holocaust Denier Faurisson, MIT professor Noam Chomsky wrote: "I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work." (cited on Wikipedia)

    Personally — I would let him in and then immediately arrest him for Holocaust Denial.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 16, 2010.


    Prof. Galia Golan, founder of the far Left Peace Now, discussed the intensifying right-wing criticism of the far Left, starting by professing not to know why this is occurring and proving it.

    And so she asks, "Is it simply a misguided campaign by a small, inconsequential (but rich) minority on the extreme right? Is it the lashing out of a weak government responding to outside pressure and criticism? Or, is it, more likely, the expression of an ideology now in power — that of the right-wing, the Likud and its supporters?"

    Prof. Steven Plaut of Haifa University, my source for her article, remarks, if only he and his cohorts were rich. He organized a campus watch organization that publicizes professors who abuse their power to indoctrinate students and repress dissent, and that suggests that universities prohibit such abuse. Prof. Golan might have asked Prof. Plaut the reason for the intensifying criticism. Democratic discussion and debate is in order.

    The first sign Golan saw of the backlash was when Likud first attained power, and she heard of epithets against the "peace camp" as "fifth column" and of anti-intellectual and anti-Ashkenazi sentiment.

    [When Sephardic Jewry immigrated, the Labor Party, largely Ashkenazi, repressed their religious freedom and used government power over the purse to extort their votes. The Ashkenazi were more modern, but considered that a mark of superiority. That problem occurred two generations ago, and largely has been resolved.]

    A full-throated campaign is on now, with proposed bills to restrict NGO funding, immigration (called infiltration), Arab mourning of Israeli independence (the Nakba law), Knesset Education Committee discussion of anti-Zionist academia, and "private" initiatives as by Im Tirtzu blaming human rights groups and underwriters for Israel's international isolation. "They add up to a policy, a campaign designed to cripple civil society, stifle criticism and eliminate opposition. They endanger the very essence of liberal democracy and of a free society, namely pluralism — of thought, deed, and expression."

    This is the same approach, according to Golan, that Israel takes in denying democracy to the millions of Palestinian Arabs under Israeli "occupation." (Plaut, 5/14.)

    The Palestinian Arabs tried to murder and drive out the Jews, and retain the same ideology. One has to balance self-preservation against them with humane treatment. The Left tips the balance against self-preservation. Hence the backlash.

    Israel offered the Arabs in the Territories free municipal elections. The Arabs elected mayors who encouraged uprising. Later, Israel offered them autonomy, though it let Arafat accumulate dictatorial power. The Palestinian Authority fomented more uprising. Israel fights terrorism, but otherwise lets the P.A. run its own internal affairs, and is not even stationed in Gaza. Hence Gaza is a terrorist base.

    The Arabs picked their own leaders, who deny them democracy. Does the Left complain about Arab oppression of Arabs? I don't hear of any complaint. Apparently the Left does not care about the Arabs, but professes concern for them only as a pretext for damning the Jewish state.

    The Left's dishonesty starts with describing itself as a peace camp. All Israelis want peace. If the Left just believed that negotiations could bring peace, it could be thought naïve. After all, the Arab ideology is one of jihad, which does not make peace but seeks to conquer and oppress.

    But the Left or far Left, believes that the way to negotiate is to give away Israel's secure borders, strategic depth, half its water supply, and holiest sites, to a most undeserving portion of the Arab nation. Israel tried withdrawals, and got back war and Arab and international contempt. How long should Israelis put up with the Left's relentless pursuit of failed policies?

    The Left also monopolizes the major media, appoints unqualified leftists to the social studies departments of universities and bars qualified rightists, indoctrinates in the classroom, and calls any criticism of its abuses as against freedom of thought. It calls that "McCarthyist." Thus the Left tries to repress criticism of itself.

    As abuses accumulate, public awareness grows and people's gorges rise. Eventually, a backlash.

    When a Prime Minister was assassinated, the Left blamed all right-wing and religious Israelis and sought to intimidate them and still does. Why doesn't Prof. Golan mention that?

    The Supreme Court and Attorney-Generals have been stacked in favor of the Far Left goals, denying Jewish rights. I remember when Israeli police hit peaceful, legal, elderly Jewish demonstrators on the head. Arabs often attack Jews with impunity; Jews defend themselves at the risk of arrest. How long should Jews put up with that?

    It turns out that the plethora of leftist NGOs are financed by foreign, anti-Zionist powers and leftist foundations, taking up the most extreme Arab demands and condoning the NGOs false accusations against Israel and support for terrorism. Just as the U.S. considers it undemocratic to allow foreign powers to buy into our elections, so, finally, Israelis start objecting to foreign powers seeking to subvert them. Israelis want, and are democratically entitled, to determine their own destiny. Can Golan honestly disagree?

    She would call it oppression of Israeli opinion. But it is not that. It is the imposition of foreign opinion and in behalf of existential enemies.

    There is infiltration. There is a wave of illegal immigration as well. Israel is fighting for its life against enemies from without, increasingly aided by enemies from within. Laws against infiltration make sense. When a proposed bill itself contains abuses, criticize the abuses. But do not try to block reform for national security!

    What does Golan think Israelis make of the frequent sympathy for terrorism shown by Haaretz and some leftist suggestions that Israel be disbanded? What is wrong with calling it, in wartime, "treason?" As Israeli Arabs increasingly assist terrorists, organize in behalf of Israel's enemies thirsting to invade, and retain an antisemitic ideology, are they not a fifth column? When Israeli leftists lead Arabs in Judea-Samaria to attack troops guarding the security fence and to attack Jews and their crops, are they not a fifth column?

    The scandal of foreign financing of the leftist NGOs demonstrated the lack of domestic support for the Left. As the casualties from leftist policies of appeasement mount, Israeli support for the leftist policies dissolves. Turns out, the Left is a fringe. Although I do not believe that popularity vindicates policy, the Left does, the Left calls the Right a fringe, so I set the record straight.

    Why Israel's international isolation, that Golan mentions? The Jewish people were isolated internationally during the Holocaust. That was not because of anything the Jewish people did. It was because of powerful bigots' psychosis. Same, today. The Muslims have so many states, and so much oil, that they have very much power, inside and outside the UN. Jihad is a major force today. Israel is one of its objectives. Again, it does not matter what the Jews do, jihadists make up excuses for attacking them.

    European Christians are losing their faith, but many have not lost their antisemitic prejudice. They either fail to see jihad infiltrating their countries or think to deflect it against Israel. But after Israel, what buffer for them? The Arabs have an expression, "After Saturday's people (the Jews), Sunday's people. It does not matter what the Christians do, jihad will pursue them. Defeat it or die.

    The difficulty that the Left has in understanding why Israel is not popular, is because it takes bigots' pretexts seriously. Leftist secularism, carried to an extreme, becomes antisemitic or allies itself with Muslim antisemitism.


    A professor referred to the dhimmi, the relegations of minorities in Muslim countries to second class citizenship. He did not discuss the humiliations and penalties Muslim Arabs imposed on Jews. He contended that the subservience was overstated, by emphasizing religious identity, and ignoring economic, gender, regional, and class identities. The differences between Moroccan Jews and Muslims, he alleged, was exacerbated by Zionism. Someone contested the depiction, but was ignored. In truth, a major function of Zionism was to rescue Jews from intolerable oppression.

    Another professor decried Jewish scholars who want to know the enemy, as having a political agenda. He said that a record of Iranian fatwas against Jews gives a bleak picture, but the source of this verifies the bleakness. Participants said the picture is distorted if one puts it into the context of the current Muslim-Israel conflict. This is a conflict that participants distorted.

    "Joel Beinin, Stanford University history professor and well-known anti-Zionist, claimed that Iraqi Jews fled to Israel in 1950-51 due to 'collusion between the Israeli state and the Iraqi government of the time. He offered no explanation or historical record of this alleged 'collusion.'" [What about the pro-Nazi coup beforehand, the beatings, discrimination, and confiscation, and similar Arab state conduct elsewhere?]

    Another professor called the conflict nationalistic rather than religious. He did not explain the Muslim religious justification for the jihad by its torch-bearers, even though the whole audience was familiar with the Islamic concept of house of war versus house of Islam, meaning, roughly, outside of Islamic countries, Muslims make war to conquer non-believers.

    If the conferees establish the notion that the conflict is not religious, "future students in the Program for the Study of Muslim-Jewish Relations will be able to ask questions pertaining to apostasy, infidels, honor killings, Jews as 'apes and pigs,' or global jihad? (Rima Greene, Campus Watch, 5/14/10)


    The misconception that Israel oppresses the Arabs in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) is based on unsubstantiated accusation, deliberate defamation, and an underlying misunderstanding of the status and misbehavior of the P.A..

    People should be more skeptical of the misconception, because Israel has no ideology of oppression, the Arabs do. Israel needs peace, not Intifada.

    During Israel's brief control over the Territories, it raised the Arabs' standard of living greatly, as Zionism had done in Israel, itself. Not the mark of an oppressor.

    The current P.A. status is autonomy. Except for IDF raids to capture terrorists whom the P.A. is supposed to capture, the P.A. mostly rules itself. P.A. self rule largely is a failed experiment, devoted too much to graft and war. Their culture makes Arabs excessively sensitive to being held accountable for their own faults, and their religious imperialism makes them eager to blame their enemy. They blame Israel. They call Israel their oppressor. Backing them up is the Left, which champions any group that it views as an oppressed minority, regardless of that group's murderous intentions.

    The P.A. has both a Fatah and a Hamas dictatorship. The Fatah regime extorts from its people. Both regimes divert their resources and foreign aid to war, and refuse to cooperate economically with Israel. Non-cooperation has extended to sewage and water treatment. The P.A. declined foreign aid to build a plant with Israel, but complains that Israel spoils or steals its water. (See prior articles on water.)

    Israel had let the Arabs of the Territories enjoy municipal self-rule, at one time. Their mayors endorsed terrorism. When, under the Oslo Accords, Israel granted them autonomy, there was supposed to be peace. The Arabs violated their agreements and committed war. That required security measures. Those security measures form the major Arab complaints, aside from unsubstantiated complaints such as accusations that Israel poisons them.

    Arabs and their foreign sympathizers complain about checkpoints, roadblocks, and searches, necessitated by the fact that many Arabs carry explosives and knives. The Arabs complain about the security fence, built to keep out Arab terrorists, whom the P.A. honors. They rustle or destroy Israeli crops, but accuse "settlers" of marauding against them. (There was a little retaliation, mostly recently.) When Jews defend themselves, the government of Israel, ever the supporter of appeasement, arrests the Jews. In those instances, the government is oppressive, of Jews.

    Arabs steal public or private land, and build on it without permits, but complain about the small percentage of so-called illegal houses demolished by Israel and accuse Jews of stealing land. Arabs squat in houses owned by Jews, and get the whole world to condemn Israel for evicting the usurpers. The world does not complain about the frequent Arab riots or throwing of stones at Jews, unprovoked. The whole world is ready to condemn Israel for expelling the usurpers. (As the old Yiddish proverb states, "The world may, but the Jews may not.")

    There is more along these lines, but that is enough. If there is any oppression, it is by the Arabs of the Jews and by the government of Israel against Jews. That oppression does not interest the world. Therefore, the world's indignation against Israel is hypocritical as well as unsubstantiated or disproved.


    Ordinary citizens who believe that Abbas, head of Fatah, PLO, and Palestinian Authority, is moderate, are taking the word of the media and the government. But how did the media and the government determine that he is a moderate?

    Lacking much knowledge of history, the media operates under a perceived underdog syndrome, never mind what the underdog did. The media looks for "moderates," whom they can pity and support as underdogs.

    The media focuses its critical faculties against Israelis, who set up checkpoints for security. The media then campaigns to end checkpoints. This is illogical. It defies reality. Reality is that the Palestinian Arabs commit terrorism, and their victims have a right to take security measures in self-defense.

    The media has a tendency to make much of minor distinctions among political parties sharing a similar ideology, as Fatah does with Hamas and other Muslim Terrorist organizations. It certainly makes their product more interesting when they report the Arab-Israel conflict like a horse race. One can root for the "moderate."

    "Moderate," after all, is a term of approbation, and "extremist" is a term of reprobation. Government agencies or political parties that promote their agenda, and media agencies that believe in advocacy journalism, are tempted to confer those terms in order to steer the debate. If someone is thought moderate, one favors him. If thought extremist, one shuns him. Favoring Abbas and trying to denigrate Jewish residents of Judea-Samaria, society calls Abbas "moderate" and settlers (as a stereotype) "extremist."

    These labels are affixed either without explanation or with reasons that themselves are suspect. Thus people explain that Abbas opposes terrorism, wants peace, and recognizes Israel. No, those notions either are false or hedged.

    As right-hand man of Arafat, once the world's foremost terrorist, Abbas was behind the murders of Israeli athletes in Munich. Abbas refuses to eliminate his PLO and Fatah Covenant references to liquidate Israel.

    Abbas honors terrorists and coddles their infrastructure, but warns that now, during his diplomatic offensive, it is not opportune for unleashing terrorism that would rouse Israeli resistance to his diplomacy, which seeks gains without having to fire a shot.

    Given a far-reaching final peace offer, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) declined. The goal of Fatah and the PLO, as well as of Hamas, is the conquest of Israel. Their Covenants vow it and their internal propaganda indoctrinates their people in this. Arafat learned from the N. Vietnamese Communists to combine diplomacy with violence, each to reinforce the other. The concessions that the Arabs demand would better position them for the next war. We Westerners, who no longer have goals of taking over other countries for ourselves, believe in diplomacy in order to solve problems and avoid war. We make the ethno-centric mistake of imagining that the Arabs operate the same way. We get taken in by them.

    Abbas, like the Arab side in general, crafts his wording so as to give us a favorable impression without hindering his belief that the Muslims must conquer non-Muslim Israel. Even if he were to recognize Israel as a state, he still would want to overthrow it. That is why PM Netanyahu demanded that the P. A. recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. If Abbas did, he would be signifying, if sincere, that he no longer wants to overthrow Israel because it is a Zionist state. Abbas refused.

    In common with Hamas, P.A. media, mosques, summer camps, and schools indoctrinate violent hatred of Jews and assert that Israel rightfully belongs to the Arabs, who are entitled to fight for it. Hardly moderate!

    There is a difference between Fatah and Hamas rule. Both make Islam the established religion in their jurisdictions, but Hamas enforces a more severely restrictive version. Both embrace imperialistic dictatorships. As far as we are concerned, that makes both of them extremist. Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel in a direct fashion, whereas Fatah pretends it is accommodating.

    Mistaking Abbas for a moderate encourages risky Israeli concessions for an illusory peace. This is one of the more dangerous misconceptions.


    At U.C. Santa Barbara, after delivering a speech, David Horowitz put it this way. "I am a Jew. The head of Hezbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn't have to hunt us down globally. For it or against it?"

    A member of the Muslim Students Association answered, "For it." A couple of dozen members in the audience refused to condemn Hizbullah and Hamas, both terrorist organizations.

    Swedish cartoonist, Lars Vilk, whom Muslims plotted to assassinate after he depicted Muhammad as a dog, was lecturing on free speech at Upsala University. First, he exhibited Christian symbols in a way that Christians probably would find offensive. Then he exhibited a film showing Muhammed entering a gay bar. With that, someone ran up to him, punched him in the face, and broke his glasses. Other Muslims became rowdy, and police had to pepper-spray them.

    Islamists try to hide their tendencies to violence, censorship, and intolerance. Video cameras are exposing them (David J. Rusin, Mideast Forum News, 5/14).

    So far, however, the American public has not caught on. Liberals still think that the big or only danger in the U.S. is from the right. They don't know that the Left, in combination with Muslims, has deprived students and many authors of their freedom of expression and perverted their education with indoctrination.

    It is not decent of people to immigrate, and of the U.S. to welcome them, only to have them stifle our freedoms. It also is not decent of people to mock others' religion — I am not referring to serious, factual presentation — just for the sake of shocking people. It is a form of emotional assault.


    Some presidents are arms dealers, nowadays (AP/Hussein Malla)

    Russia is arranging to sell Syria warplanes, anti-tank weapons, and surface-to-air missiles.

    Russia also may help Syria build a nuclear power plant (IMRA, 5/14/10), you know, they way it helped Iran to.

    Russia sold Syria and Egypt their wherewithal to mount the 1967 and 1973 wars. This time, the U.S. has prepared Egypt for the next war.


    The New Israel Fund (NIF) claims to support Israel, but here are five examples of it supporting those who want to bring Israel down:

    1. NIF Executive Director Rachel Liel said in April 2010, that if an NGO wants to deny Israelis self-determination, NIF would not subsidize it. However, in 2008, NIF subsidized Mada al-Carmel by $200,000, though that NGO wants to end Israel's status as a Jewish state and let millions of refugee descendants pour in. That would end Jewish self-determination [if not also the Jews' lives].

    2. NIF CEO Daniel Sokatch strongly objected, in March 2010, to calling Israel apartheid. However, in 2008, NIF gave $357,000 to B'Tselem, whose official, Jessica Montell, finds calling Israel apartheid useful in mobilizing people and finds the West Bank more apartheid than was South Africa.

    3. Rachel Liel also said in April 2010 that no NIF beneficiary appeared before the Goldstone commission. However, grantee PCATI did testify against Israel at the commission. Eight NGOs to which NIF had donated $2.2 million in 2008 submitted a joint statement to Goldstone, alleging "human rights violations for which Israel must be held accountable."

    4. Mr. Sokatch said in March 2010 that the movement to impose boycott, divestment, and sanctions on Israel is "unproductive, inflammatory and ineffective." However, six NGOs to which NIF contributed $478,000 in 2008 asked the Norwegian Pension Fund to divest from Israel, and it did.

    5. According to its website, NIF strongly opposes foreign prosecution of Israel. However, Adalah, to which NIF had granted $510,000 in 2008, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in Spain, supporting lawfare against Israel.

    NIF has crossed the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and supporting groups that try to delegitimate Israel (NGO Monitor, 5/14) or even to destroy Israel.

    NGO Monitor has proved its case. NIF has no excuse. NGO Monitor and others have warned NIF that this was happening in many cases. NGO Monitor pointed out that the NGOs use the language of human rights to conceal their jihadist drive to bring Israel down. Since the pattern is striking, the NIF motive, and its appeals for donations to it, hardly can be thought consistent with those appeals.

    Should a tax-exempt charity such as NIF, not to mention its grantees, be allowed to solicit funds under false pretenses?


    Barack Obama won significantly more votes in the Bible Belt than did Senator Kerry, who ran previously. Now, significant numbers of religious Christian and Jews voters are switching to the Republicans, partly over his hostility toward Israel. They find that what he does contradicts what he says. Oratory can go only so far.

    One of the biggest contributor to the Democrats, Chaim Saban, is greatly distressed over finding Obama and entourage far Left. Obama has been meeting with Jewish opinion makers, to win them back.

    Orthodox Rabbi Ephrem Goldberg of Florida said, "It's easy to repeat the phrases 'unbreakable bond' and 'shared values.' We want to hear in no uncertain terms that Iran will not be allowed to go nuclear [and] that inevitably there will be an impasse" between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. "When that happens, will they only apply pressure to Israel, or have they learned something?" (Arutz-7, 5/16/10).

    As Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all of the Jews some of the time, and you can fool some of the Jews all of the time, but you can't fool all of the Jews all of the time."


    Obama and his Nobel Award. It is a joke. (AP/Charles Dharapak)
    Former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton observes that the Palestinian Authority exploits is own people. There is no legitimate Palestinian Arab entity to deal with. Therefore, the Obama administration should not impose negotiations upon Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

    By letting the Arabs rely upon U.S. diplomacy, Obama is digging the U.S. into a whole. The negotiations are likely to fail. The U.S. will lose strength (Arutz-7, 5/16/10).

    This is another case in which the private ideology of a President propels him against the national interest.

    Mr. Bolton might have added that it also harms the U.S. to aid the Palestinian Authority because it is aligned with the international jihad that also targets the U.S.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Zvi Mazel, May 16, 2010.
    • The Arab Gulf states are feeling compelled to adopt an appeasement policy toward Tehran while with increasing dread they helplessly follow the nuclear crisis, epitomized by Iranian determination and aggression in the face of American weakness.

    • In the last few weeks we witnessed a number of acrimonious exchanges between the Gulf states and Iran following the exposure of an Iranian clandestine network in Kuwait and renewed tension between the UAE and Iran over the continuous occupation by Iran of three islands belonging to the UAE. An Iranian spokesperson said that the Emirates states belonged to Iran and when the time came, they would come under Iran's control.

    • The official Iranian news agency warned the Gulf states against pursuing confrontation: "There is no lion in the region save for the one that crouches on the shore opposite the Emirate states. He guards his den which is the Persian Gulf. Those who believe that another lion exists in the vicinity (meaning the U.S.) — well, his claws and fangs have already been broken in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine."

    • It is Qatar, which hosts large American military bases, that maintains the most cordial relations with Iran. Qatar is also influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite the fact that the Brotherhood members are Sunni, they have elected at this juncture to support Iran in its conflict with the United States.

    • The provocative naval maneuvers that Iran continues to conduct are indeed intended as a warning to the United States and Israel, but they also convey a clear message to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states: "We are here alongside you and we have massive power. Do not dare to provoke us."

    The entire article is Jerusalem Issue Brief Vol. 9, No. 25, 14 May 2010. This was published by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Institute for Contemporary Affairs.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Moshe Dann, May 16, 2010.

    Six months ago, 11 ministers approved a decision by Prime Minister Netanyahu to halt construction starts in Judea and Samaria for 10 months. The "freeze" applied only to buildings that had not begun.

    "...this suspension will not affect the construction already underway. It will not include schools, kindergartens, synagogues and public buildings necessary for the continuation of normal life over the period of the suspension," the Prime Minister's Office said.

    Defense Minister Barak apparently interpreted this administrative decision differently, directing the Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria to destroy buildings which have permits and were begun before the freeze was announced — a clear conflict with fundamental civil and humanitarian law, as well as the freeze order itself.

    Where Jews can and cannot build in Judea and Samaria is not easily defined, since national as well as local authorities are involved, although final decision-making is the hands of the Israeli military administration. This complicated puzzle played out last week in Ganei Modiin, home to 250 families. Although access to Ganei Modiin is through Hashmonaim, with 540 families, the two communities, under the authority of the Binyamin Council, are distinct.

    Hashmonaim (also known unofficially as Ramat Modiim), half of whose residents are English-speaking, is only a few kilometers beyond the Armistice Lines of 1949. Ganei Modiin is part of Modiin Illit (Kyriat Sefer), with over 30,000 residents, among a thriving, bustling group of Jewish communities in the Modiin Valley area, in which 150,000 Jews live — not an isolated, insignificant enclave.

    Driving through Hashmonaim, at the end of the road, three giant "buggers" (heavy-duty wreckers) were destroying a large, nearly completed home. Onlookers perched in other half-built homes nearby. The police had already finished destroying one home earlier that morning. The owner of that home, who lives in Ashkelon, heard of the destruction, and raced to the site with papers showing that he had permission to build, but the police and wrecking crew refused to stop.

    Small groups of teenage boys from schools in the community were scattered around the site, talking with scores of border policemen and riot police. It was 11 am and the wrecking crews had taken a break. A few kids tried to get into the half-crushed building, and were dragged out. Earlier, the family that owned the building had tried this, but was quickly removed.

    Deep social wounds

    Channels 2 and 10 and a few reporters roamed around; a policeman and several local residents had video cameras. Several boys were arrested after scuffling with policemen as the wrecking crews resumed their work. The attorney for the owner of the house arrived, and, against the backdrop of walls caving in, dust swirling in the dry heat, the homeowner, his voice reeking with pain, explained to camera crews that he had permission to build, and had begun building before the "freeze" was announced.

    That would seem to be according to law, but Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Civil/Military Administration apparently apply the "freeze" to ongoing work as well.

    The "freeze" and the destruction in places like Ganei Modiin is a disturbing symbol of Israel's failure as a democracy and as a Zionist movement. Across the hills of Judea and Samaria, a struggle is taking place, not only between Israelis and Arabs, who claim this as their land, but between Israelis representing two different cultures — one secular, the other, religious, a confrontation that sometimes gets raw, leaving deep social wounds.

    Moreover, there are a number of disturbing questions: Since the "freeze" only applies to Jews, is the government acting arbitrarily and discriminatory? Is the "rule-of-law" applied selectively? Why are Jewish homes destroyed, while illegal Arab-owned homes remain untouched? How can the property of Israeli citizens be destroyed without a civilian court order, and without an opportunity to appeal to a civilian court?

    In November, PM Netanyahu said: "We will not put any restrictions on building in our sovereign capital," yet, he recently declared a two-year halt to building in Ramat Shlomo.

    A Supreme Court panel composed of settlement foes Dorit Beinish and Ayala Procaccia, and newly appointed Neil Hendel, confirmed the government's right to carry out its decisions. Were the judges politically motivated? Moreover, their decision did not consider if the enforcement violated the conditions and restrictions set forth by the government, nor the violation of basic civil and humanitarian law, norms and standards in democratic countries.

    For example, there is no requirement that buildings be destroyed; owners can be fined, as often happens throughout Israel. And, as citizens, they are certainly entitled to the full protection of their basic rights.

    Such actions by the government beg a more fundamental question: Why are such areas, with extensive Jewish populations, still under military, rather than civilian authority?

    It's been 43 years! "If not now, when?"

    Moshe Dann is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem This article appeared in Ynet News and is archived at

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Susana K-M, May 15, 2010.

    This was written by Elyakim Haetzni is an Israeli lawyer, an activist, and a Member of the Knesset. He lives in Kiryat Arba.


    The op-ed written by Dr. Hassan Abu Libdeh ("Boycotting Goods from the Settlements-Not Against Israel") is something of a déjà vu for me: This is how my late father's business was boycotted in the city where I was born, Kiel, Germany.

    I hold the "call for a boycott" that was published in a Nazi newspaper shortly after Hitler's rise to power: "German! These are your enemies in Kiel... Bombech, furniture store, Muehlstrasse 72," and 55 other business establishments.

    The Nazis incited against the Jews as the writer of the op-ed, the "national economics minister," incites against the settlers: Exploiters, disrupters of peace.

    There was no point in debating with the father of the Palestinian national movement, Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, and there is also no chance of convincing Abu Libdeh of the legitimacy of Jewish residence in the heart of the Land of Israel.

    But several questions arise: If the boycott should succeed, the Palestinian workers manufacturing the settlers' goods will be thrown into the street. Is the "Palestinian national economy" capable of building alternative factories for them?

    If so, why has it not done so until now, with the aid of the billions of dollars that have been poured into it since Oslo, with which it funded terror and filled its leaders' pockets?

    If Mr. Abu Libdeh should roam through the "land of the settlements," he would find that many villages earn their livelihood from their settler neighbors: In construction, handicrafts, gardening, garage work. Supermarkets, malls and gas stations in the settlements are filled with Arab buyers. Since Oslo, garages, hardware stores, household goods stores and the like have "settled" opposite the gates of my city, Kiryat Arba. Is the national economics minister demanding that they close their businesses?

    And the Palestinian drivers in "occupied" Jerusalem-will they stop serving the 200,000 Jerusalemite "settlers"? And where will the Palestinian patients turn, those who need Hadassah and Shaare Zedek Hospital, which are filled with "settlers": Doctors, nurses, staff? Conversely, what will the Arab doctors and nurses do, not take the settlers' temperature? Even Ariel University has Palestinian students. Should they leave immediately?

    Abu Libdeh is trying to drive a wedge between the settlers and the rest of their people. But if even only half the Jewish people adopt a counter-boycott, how many Palestinians will lose their places in hotels, restaurants, factories and sewing shops on both sides of the Green Line? Is this how peace will look?

    The Israeli government will also not be able to ignore for long a boycott imposed on its citizens by the "partner for peace," and it too will adopt counter-measures. Has Abu Libdeh forgotten that even the lives of his "president" and "prime minister" are protected by the IDF?

    Moreover, according to his own view, the "1948 Arabs" are Palestinians for all intents and purposes. If so, is he not inviting the Jews to treat them too as Ramallah treats the "1967 Jews," the settlers?

    As a settler and an attorney, I have provided professional services to Palestinians. One such client was suspected of theft and found to be innocent, but his Jewish employer, a dignified public figure, withheld his property and caused him financial damage.

    I advised him to file a lawsuit with the rabbinic court headed by Rabbi Dov Lior. He won the case and was compensated handsomely. If I reveal his name, will the Ramallah authorities place him in prison? Another Palestinian's lands were damaged by a road paved by the Jewish National Fund. His attorney, a settler, obtained full compensation for him-should he return the money?

    We will conclude with the unlawful subsidy that the Jewish economy as a whole provides, to its detriment, to the "Palestinian national economy": 50 thousand stolen cars per year, thousands of heads of sheep, cattle and horses, beehives, irrigation equipment, tractors, forged and smuggled brand-name goods, tapes, and schoolbooks, unsupervised meat, goods without customs and VAT-thievery day and night.

    If it is forbidden to buy from Jews, it is permissible to be a parasite on their economy?

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Barry Rubin, May 15, 2010.

    Here's a story that should mark the pivotal moment in U.S. foreign policy. It should be on the lips of every White House and State Department official. It should fundamentally transform the nature of Obama Administration foreign policy.

    It's that important. But it isn't that new. The basic information here was supplied almost two months ago and covered by me HERE. Yet in all that time, since General Petraeus publicly revealed this fact, there has not been one word or action that indicates the Obama Administration is responding. Indeed, a new article reveals that President Obama has known about this increased cooperation since shortly after he took office.

    So what is this big development? Hard data showing that Iran has been helping al-Qaida. You remember al-Qaida, the group that staged the September 11 and many other attacks against Americans which have killed more than 3,000 of them. It is the only group in the world with which the current U.S. government sees itself at war.

    Now in a detailed report, drawing on interviews with U.S. officials, Associated Press documents this relationship. Tehran is responding, in part, to U.S. pressure over the nuclear weapons' program. The message from Iran is: If you annoy us we can hurt you bad.

    Al-Qaida fundraisers and the planners of terrorist attacks have been using Iran as a safe haven. Of course, Iranian officials monitor them closely and know precisely what they are doing. What do you think they are working on? Obviously, planning attacks to kill Americans.

    According to AP:

    "The roster of al-Qaida figures in Iran is something of a who's who for the terror group. One is Abu Hafs the Mauritanian, an Usama bin Ladin adviser who helped form the modern al-Qaida by merging bin Ladin's operation with Ayman al-Zawahiri's Islamic Jihad. Al-Qaida's longtime chief financial officer, Abu Saeed al-Masri, has been held there. So have bin Ladin's spokesman, Suleiman Abu Ghaith, and Mustafa Hamid, an al-Qaida trainer with a terrorism pedigree that spans decades."

    Some of these people may nominally be under house arrest at times but they are allowed to function. Iran isn't exactly offering to turn them over to the United States for punishment. Incidentally, the AP story reveals so much about U.S. intelligence efforts to monitor them that it is hard to believe that this effort isn't compromised as a result.

    Now a proper government would be building up this story, along with Iranian covert operations to kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, to mobilize support among the American people and internationally for a tough policy toward Tehran. There would be recognition of the fact that Iran views itself as being at war with America. This doesn't require going to war with Iran but engaging it in this struggle on every level.

    This is not, however, the path chosen by the Obama Administration which, at worst, still hopes to talk Iran into moderation and, at best, favors weak sanctions now and tough declarations later to tell Iran to behave properly.

    But what happens when al-Qaida planners, with Iran's knowledge and help (at least, beneficial non-interference) stage major successful or failed terrorist operations against U.S. territory and citizens? Remember, such an outcome would be a completely forseeable policy failure, not an unavoidable surprise.

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

    This article is archived at

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 15, 2010.


    After giving Israeli PM Netanyahu the cold-shouldered treatment, U.S. President Obama gave Netanyahu''s coalition partner but political rival, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the red carpet treatment. Netanyahu had to fend for himself, Barak got a White House meal. Netanyahu was received without public notice, Barak got a photo op-ed.

    When Barak returned, he repeatedly proposed that Israel enlarge the coalition to include more leftists like himself, and who, like himself, openly appease the Arabs, as does Obama. Now Obama suggests that the U.S. give Israel, short of funds, $250 million to complete its Iron Dome rocket defense. This would be seen in Israel as an achievement of personal diplomacy by Barak, whereas it may an attempt by Obama to help him neutralize Netanyahu's signs of independence (Arutz-7, 5/14/10).

    We've reported on the Iron Dome before as being too limited in range, too slow, and too expensive. It was approved apparently in a lobbying play of power, which its lobby enjoys, rather than on the merits, which it lacks. Awarding undeserved contracts and favorable regulatory decisions is the modern world's major corruption that Americans, who don't have to bribe lower level government employees for every little task, are mostly unaware of.

    Does Obama know of its inadequacy?



    New British Foreign Minister, William Hague (AP/Evan Vucci)

    Relieved that the anti-Israel head of the Liberal-Democratic Party did not become Britain's Foreign Minister, but William Hague, a self-proclaimed "natural friend" of Israel has, Israel's Foreign Minister Lieberman invited Min. Hague to visit.

    Min. Lieberman has opened a campaign to reverse the undeserved reputation Saudi Arabia enjoys with the U.S. government and media as moderate. Israel will concentrate on Saudi Arabia's caste system against females and other human rights violations and on its financing of an international effort to de-legitimize Israel.

    For example, a Saudi woman received 40 lashes for being driven by a man not her husband. Apparently the man was not whipped

    The bigger problem is the conservative Islamic caste system for females, with its primitive restrictions, not the unequal enforcement of laws on it.

    Foreign Min. Lieberman is unusual in that he fights back against the Muslim Arab case and goes on the offense. Israel needs such officials, who can stop allowing Israel to be a diplomatic punching bag. Sometimes, however, he can be offensive, which is different.

    To expose how extremist Saudi Arabia is, Lieberman should publicize its financing of radical imams and madrassas all over the world, preaching jihad against the U.S. and others. Saudi Arabia is the font of terrorism, Pakistan the main enabler, and Iran, the builder of terrorist proxies.


    When celebrating Jerusalem Day, the reunification of the city after liberating the eastern part from Jordanian military occupation, Israel's PM Netanyahu reiterated the Jewish people's historic tie to the city.

    When an Israeli Arab MK challenged Netanyahu on that, Netanyahu cited the Bible's 850 references to the city, contrasted with no mention of Jerusalem in the Koran. A 12th century interpretation of the Koran [disputed among Muslims and by historians] does say one passage referred indirectly to Jerusalem.

    Netanyahu explained, "It is not my intention to detract from the bond other peoples have with Jerusalem... I am challenging the attempts to distract from, distort or erase our unique bond with Jerusalem."

    In reaction, senior Palestinian Authority (P.A.) negotiator Saeb Erekat accused Netanyahu of using "religion to incite hatred and fear."

    By contrast, Muslim leaders often accuse Israel of attempting to destroy al-Aksa mosque, of attempting to "Judaize" Jerusalem [whatever that means]. They claim the annexed neighborhoods rightfully belong to them (Arutz-7, 5/14/10).

    Mr. Erekat did not how any appeal to hatred and fear in Netanyahu's remarks.

    P.A. accusations of attacking the mosque cause riots. The accusations often are preceded with mosque sermons quoting Islamic religious documents describing Jews as evil, fit only to be slain, the sons of apes and pigs.

    Clearly, the jihadists use religion to incite hatred and fear. Clearly, PM Netanyahu, Judaism, and the Jewish people do not.

    The jihadists demonstrate that their view of their own religion is one of hatred, and PM Netanyahu demonstrates that Judaism is one of tolerance. Muslim control meant denial of access to the holy sites of Christians and Jews, whereas Israeli control means access to the holy sites of Christians and Jews.

    Earlier articles documented statements by the Mayor of Hebron and other Muslim officials that Jews should have no right to the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarchs, and documented P.A.-condoned Arab attacks on Joseph's and Rachel's tombs, and destruction of ancient Jewish artifacts in the Temple Mount

    When will the U.S. government denounce the crude religious incitement to hatred and violence by Palestinian Authority political and religious leaders? Do you think the U.S. really is leading a peace process by subsidizing such warmongers?


    The Muslim Brotherhood's Southern Islamist Movement in Israel has a Member of the Knesset, Masoud Ganaim, who proposes that Israel fold itself into a Muslim caliphate. Then the Jews would be allowed to remain in the region, he said. He called "Israel racist," without explaining how it might be.

    He also echoed unsupported claims that Israel attacks the mosque on the Temple Mount and that Israel plans to replace it with another Jewish Temple. He said that Muslims must be prepared physically to fight over it.

    MK Ganaim's model political parties are Hizbullah and Hamas. Hamas won "democratic elections," and Israel should "respect the will of the Palestinian people," he explained (Arutz-7, 5/14/10). \

    The Nazi and Communist movements also were both political and terrorist, like Hizbullah and Hamas. Hardly makes them models. The Gaza election was like a choice between Nazis and Communists, hardly something to call democratic or to respect. What democracy has Gaza now, with its purges and shackled media? Radical Islam does not understand, respect, or like democracy, but it knows the West does, so it pretends to support it.

    Why should Israel respect the will of people who want it destroyed and who are indoctrinated in the belief that Jews are evil? Can you imagine a more primitive, intolerant, and irrational bigotry?

    What "Palestinian people" is there, not knowing they were of the "Palestinian nationality" until the mid-1960s, but thereafter alleging a false and long separate national identity. We need a truth squad against radical Islamic claims.

    Israel has no plans to replace Al-Aqsa mosque. I met a tiny and isolated group, there called Temple Mount Faithful. They researched and prepared artifacts that a new Temple would need. Their standing with the government is so poor, however, that they hardly are allowed onto the Mount and are not allowed to pray on it. How unfortunate that Israeli Arabs combine paranoia with demagoguery!

    Israel racist? Why, because it gives preference to its own people abroad to return from exile? Many countries do. Arab countries forced their Jews out, so it ill behooves Muslim Arabs to call Israel discriminatory. What does Ganaim think of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) law imposing the death penalty on sellers of real estate to Jews, and P.A. imams who preach that Jews are apes and pigs? Is that his model of tolerance that should induce Israel to subordinate itself to the Muslims?


    Itamar Marcus founded Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) 14 years ago. He wanted to see whether what the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) said about peace in Arabic to its own people matched the fine things it told the West, in English. It did not. Mr. Marcus directs PMW to expose what the P.A. tells its own people.

    Let's first explain Marcus' hope for peace, for for other people, that hope has dimmed. He points out that the Palestinian Arabs did not always hate Israel and Israelis. Arafat and the P.A. taught them to hate.

    Before Arafat was allowed back from Tunisia, the Arabs in the Territories had had 28 years of exposure to Israel without an organized P.A. to color it for them. There was no suicide bombing. Polls from 1996-1999 found that 78% of the Palestinian Arabs consistently rated Israel as the best in human rights and in democracy. The U.S. had 65%, France had 55%, and the P.A. had only 50%. In the next three years, Israel still had high ratings, but lower — 77%, 75%, and 65%.

    Therefore, if the P.A. could find a true leader with courage and decency [and a bullet-proof vest against those who would call him a traitor to Islam], he could end P.A. hate-mongering and war-mongering and educate for peace. Otherwise, Arab children grow up so indoctrinated, that there is no chance for peace.

    Educating for peace would take years, if it ever starts. Borders could be designated in an instant, but peace takes long to cement. Education must precede diplomacy. [The U.S. drive for diplomacy implies the reverse, but the Arabs would have no incentive when by virtue of terrorism, it would have gained a state with greater powers to bar Israeli retaliation.]

    Doesn't the Israeli media also attack the Arabs? No, never for what they are. That prejudicial approach is called "incitement," and is banned. But the Israeli media does criticize Arabs for what they do.

    For example, in 2008, an Arab terrorist murdered eight Israeli students in a library. 84% of Palestinian Arabs supported this. The P.A. has named summer camps and sports events after terrorists. That kind of action angers Israelis. They and most of their media condemn it, rightfully so.

    Is PMW considered by non-Israelis as a Zionist propaganda organ to be ignored? No, says Marcus. PMW does not make propaganda. It brings to people Palestinian Arab videos, radio and TV broadcasts, newspaper articles, and textbooks. The Arabs speak for themselves. PMW audiences welcome that opportunity for the facts, enabling them to reach their own conclusions

    Testifying before the U.S. Senate, PMW did not have to compose its own message. It brought a P.A. TV music video exhorting Arab children to become suicide martyrs. Kids were told they would go to child martyr heaven, and fly kites and play on Ferris wheels. The Senate was horrified. Senator Clinton called it "child abuse." [How she seems to have forgotten!]

    Palestinian Arabs and other Muslims following Marcus' presentations have condemned the P.A. for its propaganda.

    Not only didn't PMW indulge in propaganda, its expose prompted the P.A. to discontinue those videos [for a while]. Arab children benefited.

    Hamas TV presented a skit on 4/3/09, about a fictional Jewish father instructing his son. Here are key portions: "We Jews hate the Muslims, we want to kill the Muslims, we Jews want to drink blood of Muslims and Arabs." He explained that he hates Muslims to please God. "We have to wash our hands with the blood of Muslims." Totally false.

    No better is P.A. TV, January 29 of this year. "The Jews, the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger, enemies of humanity in general, and of Palestinians in particular... The Jews are the Jews. Even if donkeys would cease to bray, ... the Jews would not cease to harbor hatred to wards Muslims... "The Prophet says: 'You shall fight the Jews and kill them.'"

    Senior P.A. officials accuse Israel of trying to infect them with AIDS [Israel is a pioneer in global disease eradication], injecting acid into the foundations of al-Aqsa Mosque in order to topple it, and of experimenting on 5,000 Arab prisoners a year. Such defamation becomes the justification, in Muslim Arabs' minds, for terrorism.

    Obviously, such indoctrination precludes peace. Any reasonable person must detest it (IMRA, 5/13/10).

    Obviously, the P.A. leadership is too bigoted to make genuine peace. Personally, I haven't heard such hate-filled bilge since the Nazi era.


    (Part 9 is in the May 16th group.)

    This misconception is particularly unsuitable to such a heterogeneous grouping as the Jews who reside in the Territories. Among them are secular commuters, Orthodox Jews, and ultra-Orthodox. Some hail from Ethiopia or Western states, others are native-born. Some are left wing, some, right wing.

    Israeli schools disseminate a doctrine of ethnic and religious tolerance and an aversion to rioting and war by aggression. As for Jews in the disputed Territories, they either want to be left alone or to get along with Arab neighbors.

    Unfortunately, the Palestinian Authority ethos disseminates ethnic and religious intolerance, an affinity to rioting, and war by aggression. Thus, on their own, or stimulated by agitators, or led by leftist anti-Zionists, Arab often approach Jewish communities to taunt, attack, or vandalize. Rustling is a big burden upon Jews there and in the State of Israel.

    Resident Jews had hoped that they could rely upon the police and their own security guards to deal with those Arab attacks. Unfortunately for them, a separate set of rules was imposed upon the justice system so as to divert police from protecting Jews from Arab attacks, to harassing Jews for any minor thing.

    As a result, the police believe dubious claims by Arabs and ignore reasonable ones by Jews. When Jewish security guards or local residents defend their families and crops, Arab find that they can complain to police and instead of the marauders being arrested, the defenders are. These Jews sometimes are beaten or framed by police. They are accused of damaging Arabs' crops. Some Arabs pruned their olive trees, and then claimed that settlers attempted to destroy them and demanded compensation from the State. Since the Left is anti-settler, and has been denigrating settlers for years, it sympathizes with such charges. Anti-Zionists pick up such accusations without verification.

    After years of this abuse, some local Jews have come to retaliate against the Arab villages from which assailants came. Otherwise, there were few incidents of Jewish violence, whereas there were innumerable Arab riots and terrorist assaults, as in Hebron.

    Some Jews who hiked alone or in pairs in Judea-Samaria were found tortured and murdered. This does not happen to Arabs.

    Cries of "violent settlers" may be aired, even while hundreds of Arabs are rioting in Jerusalem over false rumors of Jewish plots to destroy al-Aqsa mosque, and while Arabs and anarchists damage the security fence and attack the troops guarding it.

    The relationship between accusation and truth is distant. The real issue is prejudice in informal reporting and in propaganda. Anti-Zionists fit the facts to their ideological narrative that Jews attack and expel Jews. The fact that Arabs squat on Jews' property is ignored, The record of Arab ethnic cleansing of Jews is not known or acknowledged by anti-Zionists. Whatever contradicts their preconceived narrative is ignored.


    The misconception that "The Arabs are made to pay for the Holocaust" has these premises: (1) Israel was developed after and because of the Holocaust; (2) The Arabs are innocent of the Holocaust; and (3) Arabs deserve the Land of Israel and Jews do not. Those premises are specious.

    The outside world learned of the Holocaust about 1942. Modern Zionism, or return to the homeland, had started in the late 1800s. The Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917. WWI peace treaties set up the Palestine Mandate in 1920. Most people at the time understood that the Mandated territory was being prepared for Jewish statehood well before the Holocaust was known about and even begun. The Mandate provisions disprove the first premise.

    What about the UN Partition Resolution of 1947? The Holocaust did engender some sympathy. I think that the Resolution is over-emphasized. After all, the Zionists drove the British out by themselves. I think they would have done so, even without the Resolution. It might have taken them longer, but their path was set.

    The Resolution was a step backward from the Mandate, by suggesting a second partition after Britain already had arbitrarily given the Trans-Jordanian provinces of Palestine to the Arabs. It had a mischievous effect in foolishly suggesting that Jerusalem be separate from both a Jewish and an Arab state. The borders it suggested were disconnected and non-viable. Typical international mish-mash.

    During the Holocaust, the Arab world strongly favored the Nazis not just because Nazis were anti-British, but because they were anti-Jewish. The Arabs grafted on to their existing antisemitism Nazi racial antisemitism. Iraqis revolted in order to install a pro-Nazi regime. There was some persecution of Jews by Arabs, but more important, plots by the western Palestinian Arab leader to bring the Holocaust to them. He went to Germany, to assist in the Holocaust. From Bosnian Muslims, he formed two SS divisions that exterminated Jews. He pressed Hitler into a policy of extermination, urging the Reich not to let Jewish children escape the Holocaust. Children! He was popular in the Arab world until his death. Jews were made to pay via the Holocaust for Arab hatred.

    After the war, Nazis escaped to Egypt and Syria. They received good jobs, including helping Arab armies prepare to attack Israel. Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf, was a best seller among Arabs then. It remains popular. Egypt's dictator, Nasser, made it required reading by his officers. Arab society disseminates and indoctrinates its people in racist, Nazi, Jew-hate.

    The Arab world exerted pressure against the precarious British Empire not to let Jews into Palestine, although as administrators of the Mandate, it was their duty to do so. Jews were kept in Europe. Hitler could not get them out of Europe, because Britain barred their exit. Whereas originally he was satisfied with expelling Jews, he turned to exterminating them when he could not expel them en masse. For that, the Arabs bear guilt as accomplices of the Holocaust. So do other countries that could have absorbed Jewish refugees but refused to do so. Britain blocked Jews from their internationally declared national home. (He who fences in the deer for slaughter is as guilty as the slaughterer.)

    To rebut the third premise, we consider the preamble to the Mandate. It recognized the Land of Israel, a.k.a. Palestine, as the Jewish homeland, and its restoration to the Jewish people as a correction of the historical injustice done in forcing most Jews out of it and into countries that did not treat them with equality.

    Among those who committed that injustice was the Arab empire. Arab armies took over Palestine and other areas outside the Arabian Peninsula. They lost control to Turks, within a couple of hundred years. Both they and the Turks made conditions too onerous for the indigenous population. As the Muslim rulers let the area sink into ruin, the population dwindled into insignificance.

    Now turn to the WWI peace treaties that disposed of the belligerent Turkish Empire. These treaties allotted 99 ½% of that former Turkish Empire to the Arabs, and about ½% to the Jews. Would you call that unfair to the Arabs? There was no "Palestinian" nationality as such. Such a notion was fabricated decades later for propaganda purposes. Recall, however, that Britain made part of Palestine, i.e. Transjordan, later Jordan, into an Arab area, emirate, and finally, state. That constituted a Palestinian Arab state, for imperialist reasons, not national ones, since there was no separate Palestinian, Jordanian, or Hashemite nationality. Later, in order to give color to their claim for a state in territory that Israel controls, they called themselves "Palestinians." Their PLO Covenant, however, admits they are of the Arab nation.

    You might think that the UN Partition Resolution recommending a state for the Arabs entitles them to a state. Not after they rejected the Resolution, which was just a suggestion anyway, since the General Assembly cannot make laws. They rejected it in order to attempt to expel the Jews. Arab invaders boasted that they would massacre the Jews, the way Genghis Kahn wiped out whole cities. They have been waging war on Israel ever since. They fight by criminal means, attacking civilians. They continue to indoctrinate in hatred of Jews and in destroying Israel.

    In their first war of aggression against Israel, outside Arab armies seized the Territories, including the so-called West Bank. In a later war, they lost these Territories to Israel. During the years in between, Arafat started his terrorism against Israel, and not against Egypt and Jordan, which ran the Territories oppressively. This means that he and his followers wished to conquer Israel. Their motive was not, as claimed now, to capture the Territories in order to have their own state.

    During Egyptian and Jordanian rule of the Territories, the Arab authorities saw no need for a separate, western Palestinian Arab state. Neither did the local Arabs. Jordan granted its new subjects citizenship, and they accepted it without protest. They only "discovered" that they were a separate nationality from Jordan when the Jewish state took over those territories. Only after Israel acquired the territories, did Arafat's followers claim them. Where is any sincerity behind this?

    What is the legal status of the Territories today? They are the unallocated territories of the Mandate. As chief heir to the Mandate, whose purpose was to provide a transition to Jewish political rule there, Israel is entitled to those Territories. There is where Jewish civilization started. There contain the mountains that can provide Israel with secure borders that discourage invasion.


    Israel has devised a new logistical defense. Formerly, it stockpiled arms and equipment at a few, major, fortified warehouses. Considering all the missiles targeting Israel, that strategy puts too many eggs into too few baskets.

    The new logistical defense is to scatter the materiel among more sites (IMRA, 5/13/10).


    Westerners have heard much about rather innocuous cartoons of Muhammad eliciting death attempts and threats. Few have heard about pointed descriptions of disgusting behavior often attributed to him on an evangelical Arabic TV station, al-Haya (Life TV), especially on two weekly programs: Hiwar al-Haq (Truth Talk), hosted by Coptic priest Fr. Zakaria Botros, and Su'al Jari' (Daring Question), hosted by ex-Muslim Rashid.

    Both shows ask uncomfortable questions about Islam and its founder. They want Muslims to reconsider their faith's legitimacy (see here and here for English summaries).

    Several Muslim countries ban the broadcasts, but millions of Arabic-speakers watch it. When the series started, Muslims called in death threats. In response, the show revealed more revolting behavior by Muhammad [whom Islam considers the perfect man]. Just one set of examples is, "More graphically, Fr. Zakaria recently examined canonical hadiths (authenticated Muslim accounts) that record Islam's first believers eating Muhammad's feces, marinating food in his sweat, drinking the water he gargled and spat out, and smearing his phlegm all over their faces — all to his approval."

    Observant Muslims still hate the broadcasters, but have become apathetic about it. Now most of the callers are Muslim converts to Christianity, who thank the hosts for opening people's eyes.

    How come Muslims express less outrage over those broadcasts, which cast serious aspersions, than over mild cartoons? The Western reaction to death threats is appeasement. The West censors itself, facilitating Islamic subversion there. This encourages Muslims to monitor Western media more intently and complain more often, because that approach works in the West.

    Life TV refuses to censor itself. Finding that threats do not work, Muslims relax their efforts. Act subordinate to Islam, and be treated as subordinate. Act independent, and be treated as independent.

    Cartoons, such as one of Muhammad in a bear costume he never wore, are not based on reality or persuasive sources. Life TV quotes from the most authentic Islamic sources, so Muslims find them incontrovertible (Middle East Forum, 5/12 from Raymond Ibrahim, associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.)

    TIMES SQ. BOMBING CASE EXPANDS FBI agents raided several houses and arrested three men from Pakistan who gave money to the Times Square bomber. The question is whether they realized the money was for terrorism (William K. Rashbaum, Scott Shane, New York Times, 5/14/10, A17).


    Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu strongly condemned the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) for its economic warfare against Israel. He contrasted Israel's assistance to the P.A. economy, with the P.A. campaign to keep Israel out of the OECD.

    The U.S. may have urged the OECD application reviewers to consider Israel's admittance solely on economic grounds and not on extraneous political grounds.

    Then why doesn't the U.S. condemn the P.A. for its economic warfare against Israel, just when he is trying to get it to make peace. After all, the U.S. readily condemns Israel on lesser matters.

    Why don't American friends of Israel condemn the Obama administration for its silence on the P.A. economic warfare "and other PA activity that undermines confidence in their sincerity to make progress in the 'peace process' with Israel?" (IMRA, 5/14/10).

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Fred Reifenberg, May 15, 2010.


    Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://freddebby.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner and David Bedein, May 14, 2010.


    It has been reported that U.S. President Barack Obama recently pressed Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to continue the American program for helping the Palestinian Authority upgrade its security forces

    That program in question began in March 2005, with the establishment of a U.S. Security Coordinator Team, headed by Lt. General Keith Dayton. Plans called for selected PA National Security Force troops to be trained and equipped by the United States. Presumably, over time, the old PLO militia would be transformed into a professional force that would help to build a nation.

    Five years later, with millions of dollars and much effort having been expended on this on-going program, cogent reasons for doubting its wisdom present themselves.

    Major-General (res.) Ya'akov Amidror-former head of the IDF's Research and Assessment Division suggested last year that Americans may be acting with "a certain na&ium;vete," attempting to fulfill their dreams [for peace] while ignoring pertinent facts. Concurring, an Arab journalist with connections to the PA has stated forthrightly that, "To expect political fruits from this is a mistake — an illusion."

    One of the more serious questions that has surfaced concerns the loyalty of the troops that are being trained. General Dayton says they are loyal to "the Palestinian flag, and the Palestinian people." Palestinian society, however, is founded on traditional Arab culture, whose first allegiance is to the clan (hamula), and not the nation.

    Dr. Mordecai Kedar, research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University, observes, "...when (not if) there will be domestic problems in the PA/Palestinian State these people will be loyal primarily to their clan rather than to the state, since they will never shoot their brothers or cousins..."

    The role that Hamas might play vis-à-vis these forces is a cause of alarm. PA troops being trained are expected to stand against Hamas, so that it cannot take over in Judea and Samaria.

    Yet a proposal for a "unity government" that would forge a Fatah-Hamas coalition remains on the table.

    JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs in Washington DC, has voiced strong reservations about the wisdom of U.S. training of a Palestinian security force without a clear understanding of the authority to which that force would ultimately answer. It is within the realm of possibility that the very PA troops expected to contain Hamas might ultimately be commanded by Hamas. After all, that is precisely what occurred in Gaza, where we witness the Hamas armed forces brandishing American weapons.

    Meanwhile, the fear that Palestinian troops may turn their weapons on the IDF stems from the precedent of what occurred with the outbreak of the second Intifada ten years ago, when Palestinian troops that had been nurtured and trained by the US and even by the IDF engaged in a full scale armed rebellion against Israel.

    Indeed, only last week, The Palestinian Authority issued an official report, funded by the American government and by the European Union, which indicates that the the Palestinian security forces had risen to that of a "pre-army." level That report, available http://arab-reform.net/IMG/pdf/annual_rep_010_english.pdf, published by the Palestine Center for Policy and Social Research, mentions that the PA armed forces have been significantly professionalized under the U.S. military aid program, which, over the past 18 months, has trained five Palestinian battalions, under the framework of a U.S.-sponsored training in a four-month course held in Jordan". The report states that that the United States has increased funding for PA security forces and plans to allocate more than $100 million over the next year.

    In other words, were PA troops, in frustration and anger, to turn on Israel, they would do so with a new-found competency, thanks to the intense training they are being provided by the U.S.

    Perhaps the time has come for Prime Minister Netanyahu to recall that a major stipulation of his plan for a Palestinian State that he presented at Bar Ilan University on June 14th, 2009 was that "In any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel"

    This article is reprinted from May 10 issue of Defense News, p.37,

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Moshe Phillips, May 14, 2010.

    J Street, the controversial Jewish pressure group that was created to lobby for a Palestinian state, is back in the news. J Street is now in the news in, of all places, Amman, Jordan because of their unauthorized, freelance diplomacy mission there. The Jordan Times reported on May 2 that "Their Majesties King Abdullah and Queen Rania on Sunday met with delegates from the American organisation, J Street, who are on a visit to the Kingdom as part of a regional tour."

    The question is why would the Jordanian monarchy be interested in meeting with J Street in the first place? One might think that a group that only held its first national convention in October of 2009 would not be deemed worthy of meeting with Jordan's King and Queen.

    It is also curious that their visit to Jordan did not generate the headlines that J Street has been getting somewhat used to. After all, J Street has been making the news a lot since 2009.

    Perhaps the Jordanian government believed that it was worth meeting with J Street because of the connections J Street has with the Democratic Party.

    A key strategy of J Street from its very outset has been to use the gravitas that even the most radical Democrats now have in the Obama era to provide it with the cover it needs to advance its pro-Palestine agenda.

    Five of the Democratic congressmen who signed a controversial letter that urged President Obama to increase pressure on Israel were rewarded by the radical J Street lobby organization with a five day President's Day weekend tour of Israel, Jordan and the so-called "Palestinian Territories". That this letter precipitated what many have termed the worst crisis in U.S.-Israel relations in decades must not be discounted.

    Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim to be elected to the United States Congress, was the key organizer of the letter to President Obama asking the administration to use diplomatic pressure on Israel to end the co-called blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. Ellison and the 53 other Democrats who signed the letter were widely labeled as the "Gaza 54".

    Matt Brooks, the Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition released the following statement about the letter on January 29:

    "By now, you've probably heard that 54 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives (no Republicans) sent a letter to President Obama — a letter in which they urge him to pressure Israel to loosen security measures on Israel's border with Hamas-controlled Gaza. This is outrageous. And we need to raise our voices to respond! These security measures were implemented to counter the threat from terrorism originating from the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip."

    Every Congressman on the J Street sponsored President's Day trip signed Ellison's letter which J Street endorsed.

    J Street's February 12 press release on its "first Congressional mission" read in part:

    "Representatives Lois Capps (CA-23), Bill Delahunt (MA-10), Bob Filner (CA-51), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15), and Donald Payne (NJ-10) will meet with Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian government officials as well as civil society leaders to get an in-depth, on-the-ground look at the state of the peace process, and to explore the American role in bringing about regional, comprehensive peace. "We're excited to start bringing members of Congress to the Middle East as part of our overall effort to promote strong US leadership to achieve a two-state solution and regional, comprehensive peace," said Jeremy Ben-Ami, Executive Director of the J Street Education Fund."

    Several important nuanced phrases in Ben-Ami's statement and the press release illustrate the cause for alarm that J Street has generated from its critics both in Israel and in the U.S. Zionist community.

    J Street's very radical stance is based on the idea that the U.S. should pressure Israel into accepting a "two-state solution" and that a "two-state solution" is the remedy for a "regional, comprehensive peace". This is a seriously dangerous view. How will a "two-state solution" make peace magically happen between Muslims and Christians in Lebanon or Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq? Will a "two-state solution" bring a stop to the murder and persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt? This "two-state solution" rhetoric gives credence to the ridiculous claims that Israel's existence is the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. According to the May 2 Jordan Times King Abdullah stated to J Street "that the continuation of the status quo will lead to a new cycle of tension and violence in the region."

    There is no reason to believe that a "two-state solution" will be any solution at all. After all, the creation of a de-facto Islamic Republic in Gaza not only hasn't brought peace to the region, it has dramatically increased the footprint of Iranian backed Islamic terrorism in the area.

    J Street had stated that the Congressmen were to meet with "Palestinian ... government officials." Which officials did they mean? The Fatah terrorists posing as a government in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) or the Hamas terrorists posing as a government in Gaza?

    Were leaders of Israel's settlers be granted any access to the Congressmen? Without meeting the settlers — the only community being transferred and displaced by J Street's "two-state solution" Palestinian statehood scheme — how could these Americans ever hope to get an accurate idea of the full situation? J Street is more interested in the views of Jordan. Jordan's Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al-Hussein, Ambassador of Jordan was a presenter at the J Street Conference on October 26, 2009, the first full day of the Capitol Hill event. And this was just weeks after Christiane Amanpour's October 2, 2009 CNN interview with Queen Rania when Rania directly attacked Israel stating "can the world afford for this conflict to keep the way — I mean, it is — it's a disgrace to humanity that there is still this occupation, that there's an entire population that's still dehumanized, that's still under occupation and suffering."

    J Street seemed in part to be following Queen Rania lead when it joined an alliance of organizations with a strong history of criticizing Israel when it too endorsed Ellison's letter. These staunch critics of Israel include The Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation (HCEF), The American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), The American Near East Refugee Association (ANERA), The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) and Rabbis for Human Rights.

    Since being elected to Congress in 2006 Ellison has caused controversy several times. Perhaps, most significantly when he demanded to use a Koran for his ceremonial swearing-in in 2006. Ellison has travelled to Iraq, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Gaza since being elected. In February 2009 Ellison and fellow Democratic congressman Brian Baird toured Gaza. At the time Ellison and Baird issued a joint statement assigning moral equivalency to Israel and the Hamas terrorist group saying: "The first and most urgent priority must be helping the people in Gaza. At the same time, the rocket attacks against Israeli cities must stop immediately. Just as the people of Gaza should not be subject to what they have experienced the Israeli civilians should not have to live in fear of constant and indiscriminate rocketing."

    So far J Street's JStreetPAC has distributed over half a million dollars to US Congressional candidates it is backing for the November 2, 2010 elections. Ellison was among those that the JStreetPAC financially contributed to and has officially endorsed.

    Did these Congressmen show their appreciation to J Street by setting the stage for J Street's unusual May visit to the Jordanian Royal Court when they were there back in February? How will J Street reward the 49 others of the Gaza 54? We will have to keep watching.

    "Moshe Phillips is a member of the Executive Committee of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel — AFSI. The chapter's website is at: www.phillyafsi.com and Moshe's blog can be found at http://phillyafsi.blogtownhall.com. This article originally appeared in American Thinker with the title "Does J Street Stand For Jordan Street?" on May 12, 2010:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/ does_j_street_stand_for_jordan.ht"

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Miskin, Maayana, May 14, 2010.

    Israeli-Arab MK Masoud Ganaim (on left).

    Israel should be integrated into an Islamic Caliphate, and Hamas and Hizbullah should be respected as legitimate political movements, according to Israeli-Arab MK Masoud Ganaim in an interview with the weekly paper Kul al-Arab, which is published in Israel. The interview was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

    Ganaim explicitly said that he is opposed to Jewish statehood, stating that his Ra'am Ta'al party is "against the Zionist movement and its racist ideas." If Israel is absorbed into an Islamic Caliphate, he said, Jews will be allowed to remain in the region.

    Ganaim (in left side of picture) is a member of the southern branch of the Islamic Movement, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Regarding Jerusalem, which Ganaim referred to as "occupied," the MK said that Arabs must be prepared to fight. "Jerusalem and Al-Aksa [Mosque] are both in danger," he declared. He backed extremist Muslim leaders in saying that Israel is threatening the Al-Aksa Mosque and plans to rebuild the Temple.

    When asked if the struggle for Al-Aksa should be peaceful, the MK said Muslims "must not relinquish any means."

    Ganaim expressed support for Hamas and Hizbullah, which both strive to destroy Israel. "The Iran-Syria-Hizbullah axis represents the policy of resistance and non-capitulation, so naturally I am with this axis," he said when asked which side he would support in a battle between Iran and a handful of Arab nations.

    Hizbullah is "a model for a political party that assigns a special place to religious discourse," he continued.

    The world, Israeli included, should accept Hamas, Ganaim said. Hamas was voted into power in democratic elections, and Israel should "respect the will of the Palestinian people," he explained.

    Ganaim's interview comes on the heels of a dispute involving six other MKs from Israeli-Arab parties. MKs Ahmed Tibi, Mohammed Barakei, Taleb a-Sana, Haneen Zoabi, Jamal Zahalka and Afo Agbaria visited Libya. Following the visit, members of the coalition suggested that the Knesset strip the six of their parliamentary immunity.

    Maayana Miskin writes for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today.

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Stephen Michal Kramer, May 14, 2010.

    Shavuot (or Shavuos/Weeks /Yom Habikkurim) is celebrated from sundown of the 5th of Sivan until nightfall of the 7th of Sivan, corresponding this year to May 18-19 on the Gregorian calendar. Shavout commemorates the bestowing of the Torah upon the Jewish People, which, in large part, shaped the nature of the world and especially Western democracies. The bestowing of the Torah took place over 3,300 years ago, setting the Jewish people on the way to the Land of Israel. It also highlights the eternity of the Jewish people.

    Jewish sages have compared the Sinai experience to a wedding between God and the Jewish people. Shavuot also means "oath" and on this day God swore eternal devotion to the Jewish people, and we in turn pledged everlasting loyalty to Him. Thus Jews are both the "chosen" people and the "choosing" people, because on Shavuot the Israelites accepted the commandments of God as transmitted by Moses. It is said that all Jews, those living at the time and all the generations that would come after, were present at Sinai for the giving of the Torah.

    What is the Torah, which means instruction or guide? The Torah is composed of two parts: the Written Law and the Oral Law. It contains the Five Books of Moses, the Prophets and the Writings. Together with the Written Law, Moses was also given the Oral Law, which explains and clarifies the Written Law. Jewish religious tradition holds that Moses wrote the Torah through a process of divine inspiration.

    The short but joyous holiday of Shavuot is characterized by the following: the lighting of holiday candles to usher in the holiday; all night Torah learning sessions; special meals; abstention from "work"; synagogue attendance to hear the reading of the Ten Commandments; a Yizkor (memorial) service; reading of the Book of Ruth, as King David, whose passing occurred on this day, was a descendant of Ruth the Moabite.

    Many Jews, both religious and secular, eat dairy foods on Shavuot. It's less well known that religious Jews eat two meals on Shavuot, one "milk" and one "meat", taking care not to mix the two.

    Here are a sample of the fascinating reasons for the widespread tradition of eating dairy foods on Shavuot:

    When the Jewish people received the Torah at Mount Sinai, included were special instructions for kashrut, or how to slaughter and prepare meat for eating. Until then, the Jews had not followed these laws, thus all their meat, plus the cooking pots, were now considered "unkosher". The only alternative was to eat dairy, which requires no advance preparation. (The revelation at Sinai occurred on Shabbat, when slaughter and cooking of meat are prohibited. The Jews already had milk available from before Shabbat, which they had been using to feed the various animals that accompanied their journeys in the wilderness.)

    Torah is likened to milk, as the verse says, "Like honey and milk [the Torah] lies under your tongue" (Song of Songs 4:11). Just as milk fully sustains the body of a human being (i.e. a nursing baby), so too the Torah provides all the "spiritual nourishment" necessary for the human soul.

    The gematria (numerical value) of the Hebrew word for milk, chalav, is 40. We eat dairy foods on Shavuot to commemorate the 40 days that Moses spent on Mount Sinai receiving instruction in the entire Torah. Moses spent an additional 40 days on Sinai, praying for forgiveness following the Golden Calf, and then a third set of 40 days before returning with a new set of stone tablets.

    The Torah says: "Bring Bikkurim (first fruits) to the God's Holy Temple; don't cook a kid in its mother's milk" (Exodus 34:26). In ancient times, when the Temple still stood in Jerusalem, farmers would go to their fields and tie a thread around the first fruits to bud. These would be brought to the Temple as an offering in a fancy basket during the holiday, when it was mandatory to visit the Temple. Since the first day for bringing Bikkurim is on Shavuot, the second half of the verse, referring to milk and meat, corresponds to Shavuot.

    An alternative name for Mount Sinai is Har Gav'nunim, the mountain of majestic peaks. The Hebrew word for cheese is gevina, etymologically related to "gav'nunim". Further, the gematria of gevina is 70, corresponding to the "70 faces of Torah." This refers to 70 facets or valid ways to understand each part of the Torah.

    The eating of dairy foods commemorates a phenomenon concerning milk in the early life of Moses, which occurred on Shavuot. Moses lived at home for three months with his family, before being placed in the Nile River on the sixth of Sivan to save him from Pharaoh's evil decree. He was rescued by Pharaoh's daughter, who adopted him and took him to live in Pharaoh's palace. Immediately a problem arose: what to feed the baby. Eventually Pharaoh's daughter found the one woman who Moses agreed to nurse from — Yocheved, his biological mother.

    The holiday of Shavuot is widely celebrated in Israel, as are all the Jewish holidays. That doesn't mean that everyone is religious. Secular kibbutzim, for example, celebrate Yom Habikkurim exuberantly as their harvest festival. Everyone knows that eating dairy foods is customary. All the restaurants and bakeries feature a myriad of dairy delicacies and most people know that Shavuot is the "birthday" of the Ten Commandments and the coming of age of the Jewish people. If it takes the eating of cheesecake to remember that Shavuot is the day that we became the Chosen People, that's good enough for me. Happy holiday to all my readers!

    See www.aish.org and www.chabad.org for more information on all of the Jewish holidays.

    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." Contact him at mskramer@bezeqint.net

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Elias Bejjani, May 14, 2010.

    What an insult, a dire humiliation and a dismal disgrace to the essence, core and spirit of global human rights institutions, groups and efforts when a terroristic, fanatical, fundamentalist, and dictatorial country like Libya is elected by a majority of its fellow UN members to serve on the United Nations Human Rights Council.

    Unquestionably, May 13, 2010 will be remembered as a sad, bleak and shocking day for human rights activists and their efforts all over the world. This day will go in history as a real shame for the UN because human rights values and principles were all slaughtered and downtrodden when in a secret ballot Libya received 155 votes and will henceforth serve a three year term on the UN Human Rights Council.

    It is worth mentioning that to get elected onto the UN Human Rights Council each country requires 97 votes. There are a total of 192 countries that make up the United Nations. Libya with the support of Arab, Muslim and African members paved its way to the Human Rights Council that actually negates all human rights values with its notorious and savage and anti-human rights record.

    Is the previously reputable UN falling apart and becoming a mere arena and battlefield for terrorists, fundamentalists, dictators and tyrants? In fact there is no logic nor justice, fairness or any kind of reason that could justify this murky infringement. There is no sanity in giving the bizarre and repugnant Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, and his repressive regime a UN voice and a voting power on the UN Human Rights Council.

    How can the Free World countries swallow such a violation to the whole Charter of Human Rights and allow a country like Libya to sit on a UN human rights body? Aren't they all aware of Libya's abysmal human rights record, or they don't know its well documented and deeply rooted history of terrorism, crime, kidnapping, hijacking, assassinations and its well known ties to worldwide terrorism and terrorist organizations?

    This notorious scandal is actually a humongous setback for the UN and with no doubt will make of the UN Human Rights Council a mere joke with no credibility whatsoever. The UN is being distantly derailed from its original mission of peace and humanity. Unfortunately, this latest development demonstrates that the direction of the United Nations today is slipping from a bad state to even worse.

    Can one fathom that a terrorist country was brought into the UN Human Rights Council, a body that once had American First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt as its chairman? In keeping with that legacy, shouldn't the American administration of President Barack Obama have made further efforts to ensure that terrorist Libya did not become a member of the UN Human Rights Council?

    Sadly, the US administration did not make these efforts and effectively abandoned its human rights obligations. And it did so even though a 2009 report from the US State Department states that in Libya there is routine torture of detainees, amputations and flogging of political opposition members without trial, indefinite detention of women "suspected of violating moral codes", and the criminalization of Christian and Jewish worship. Meanwhile their president, Muammar al-Gaddafi, claims that the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah are forgeries.

    One wonders about the reaction of the families and friends of the Lockerbie victims when they see the Libyan regime that killed their beloved ones is now a member of the UN Human Rights Council.

    How can the countries which voted for Libya ignore the crime that its regime committed in 1988 when it exploded Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland killing all its passengers?

    Although Libya has paid $1.5 billion to the families of the victims of the Lockerbie terrorist bombing in order to overcome the final obstacle to full relations with the United States, the country has yet to answer for the numerous global crimes it has committed.

    One of these unanswered crimes relates to the reputable Lebanese Shiite religious and political leader, Sayyid Mousa Al Sadr, who in August 1978 with two of his companions, Sheikh Muhammad Yaacoub, and journalist, Abbas Badreddine, departed Lebanon for Libya to meet with government officials. The three were never heard from again. It is widely believed that the Libyan leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi, personally ordered their killing. The fate of the three is still not clarified and the Libyan authorities continuously refuse to admit their responsibility.

    Finally, what the UN members who elected Libya did is that they have placed a wolf in charge of the sheep. It is really a joke. This irresponsible conduct ought to be condemned by the countries of the free world that must assume their responsibilities and put an end for such intolerable breaches against human rights.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 14, 2010.

    Because of Shabbat preparations I was going to skip a post today but circumstances have motivated me to write, although it will be brief. I'm calling out the troops.

    Yesterday I wrote about what Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch said regarding the fact that demolition of illegal Arab housing in Jerusalem was going to proceed. The delay in carrying out these (court ordered) demolitions, he said, was the result of "diplomatic sensitivities" but that this situation no longer applies.

    Not much. And this is why I am very angry. If you were with me you'd see the steam coming out of my ears.

    I anticipated that the US would protest, but it's gone further than that. The US has asked for a "clarification," and now the Public Security Ministry expects Netanyahu to put a hold on the demolitions.

    Yesterday, the Ministry put out a statement that:

    "Police do not destroy homes, but rather secure the demolitions, in line with court decisions. Police will carry out every mission given to it by the courts. The rule of law is not a vehicle for a Middle Eastern political and geostrategic discussion."

    I had addressed this issue of rule of law yesterday, and this is a marvelous and appropriate statement coming from a sovereign democracy.

    However, there was also a clarification in that statement:

    "We are subordinate to decisions by the attorney-general and the government, and we will act according to their decisions."

    Put simply, we know what is right, but cannot be responsible if the government overturns us.

    Damn, damn, damn.

    You read my description of one case yesterday. There are many others as well. Ahmed Sheikh not only built beyond what he had permission for, he made a commitment to stop building while the appeals were going on, but defiantly continued to build. The court ordered what he had constructed to be razed a full year ago. And the government is tying the hands of the local authorities in carrying out this court order and others. Because the PA will scream and yell if we act with full legal authority and Obama will be angry. This will be an "obstruction to peace," you see.


    And so...

    First, please, contact Prime Minister Netanyahu. Using your own words, please, but tell him that a sovereign state acts with independence and a democracy acts according to rule of law. Tell him that in caving to demands of Obama he is undermining our sovereignty and the underpinnings of our democracy. Demand that he stand strong.
    Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)

    E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses

    There are two phone numbers listed for his Knesset office — not the best way to contact him, but the only working numbers I have at the moment: 02-6753-227 and 02-640-8457.


    Contact Minister Aharonavitch, as well, and tell him that you appreciate his strength on the matter of illegal housing demolitions, and that you stand with him.
    Phone: 02-640-8825
    Fax: 02-649-6188
    E-mail: iaharon@knesset.gov.il


    When calling Israel from the US: 011-972 and then drop the first zero and continue with the number.


    Then messages must go out in the US. Repeat what I said above about undermining Israeli democracy and sovereignty. Point out that the demolitions were planned only for Arab homes built illegally that the courts ordered to be demolished.

    Additionally, point out that there is inequity in the response of the US government. Allude to the Palestinian Media Watch report describing the most recent PA incitement on TV that denies Israel's right to exist. I reported on this recently. It can be found at:

    Promises aside, Abbas is continuing to turn a blind eye to incitement, and the US is ignoring this. If you are faxing (best) or using e-mail, include this URL.


    It is probably pointless to contact the president, but do so anyway. Politely but firmly express your anger.
    Fax: 202-456-2461
    White House Comment line: 202-456-1111
    E-mail form via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/


    More important, contact your elected representatives in the House and Senate. Politely express your concerns, as above, and ask that Congress reign in the administration with regard to its unreasonable pressure on Israel and its inequities. Explain that this stance will not and cannot bring peace.

    For your Congresspersons:

    For your Senators:
    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm

    This is important, and, as always, numbers count. We are immersed in a serious struggle and your active support here helps. Put this up on blogs, share with lists. Make noise because the situation stinks.


    If you are not already angry, this should do it:

    When Netanyahu addressed the Knesset on Yom Yerushalayim, he spoke about the numerous references to Jerusalem in the Bible (it refers to Jerusalem and Zion 850 times).

    Now PA negotiator Saeb Erekat says he found these references "distasteful": "[using] religion to incite hatred and fear."


    More after Shabbat...

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 14, 2010.


    You probably have heard the general news of the voters' revolt against incumbents, especially Democratic incumbents and candidates. There is a Jewish revulsion against Obama and his Party, too.

    According to David Goldman, Senior Editor of First Things magazine and 'Spengler' columnist for Asia Times Online, Jews who voted for Obama on the basis of their ideals, and whom he assured is pro-Israel, find themselves deceived. They think of him as a con man.

    Reflecting this disappointment, Democratic Members of Congress are being booed off the dais of Reform synagogues. Jewish contributors to the Democratic Party are switching their donations to the GOP.

    Many Christian Evangelists, for whom Israel is a major issue, are rumbling. They are likely to note in higher numbers, now.

    Meanwhile, his whole foreign policy is shaky. It could collapse by election time. Iraq may falter as he withdraws U.S. troops. Iran may have a nuclear weapon by then.

    Obama is trying to persuade people that he is getting legislation through and that the Republicans are trying to block it Arutz-7, 5/13/10).

    Suppose the people find out that the Republicans are trying to get actual reforms through, such as the McCain effort to restrict Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages in number and to restore prudence in mortgage lending? Suppose they find out that Obama and his party blocked them? Most people are not impressed by recently passed legislation, which hardly solves their problems so much as create new ones and a vacuum cleaner for their money and liberty.

    The unfortunate part of this voter and taxpayer revolt is its shotgun approach. It indiscriminately takes down incumbents who are fairly well aligned with the people's preferences.


    President Obama appointed Rashad Hussein the U.S. Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. He gave an interview to the English-language edition of the Arabic international daily Asharq Al-Awsat. It drew objection for his gratuitous denigration of the Bush Administration.

    The State Dept. responded with a translation of the transcript that not offensive and was much milder. It claimed that the newspaper misrepresented the Envoy.

    Commentary analyst Jennifer Rubin, the whistleblower, is not satisfied. Even the translation shows our Envoy apologetic to the Muslim world and evasive about any link between Islam and terrorism. Mr. Hussein ignores the great danger of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, in favor of on the much narrower conflict between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

    Ms. Rubin wonders whether it pays to give interviews if they are going to be distorted into anti-American and pro-Palestinian Arab "talking points."

    Hussein said, "...as a Muslim I know full well that the Al Aqsa Mosque was the first Qibla" [direction in which Muslims pray] (Arutz-7, 5/13/10).

    Whose translation is false? Whom does Mr. Hussein represent? Himself, as a Muslim, Obama, a former Muslim, or the U.S. national interest?

    Hussein may be a Muslim, but he misrepresented the first Qibla. The first direction in which Muslims prayed was Jerusalem, on which there were no mosques at the time, and was holy because of its Jewish and Christian associations. Muhammad was trying to interest the Jewish people in his new religion.


    Fatah Central Committeeman Mahmoud al Aylool suggested at a conference that the Palestinian Arabs boycott products from the State of Israel, not just from Judea-Samaria.

    The Palestinian Authority has an agreement not to boycott Israel. The Committeeman is suggesting an informal boycott.

    "However, Akiva Eldar, a columnist for the left-wing Haaretz newspaper, not only backed the PA boycott on Judea and Samaria but also called on the Israeli government to 'follow in the PA's footsteps and cut itself off from the settlers.... Instead of hiding behind the self-righteous claim that it is providing livelihoods for thousands of indigent laborers, let the government open the Israeli markets to more Arab goods and workers from the territories.'" (Arutz-7, 5/13/10).

    When members of the ruling Central Committee and probably P.A. officials will endorse this expanded boycott, it would be difficult sophistry for them to disclaim official responsibility for that additional violation of the Oslo Accords at a time when the Obama Administration may be sensitive to distrust between the negotiating parties.

    Haaretz again shows itself pro-Arab and anti-Israel. To feel sorry for an enemy that wants to destroy one's country and exterminate one's people is sick enough. To mock the fact that Jews residing in the Territories provide thousands of jobs for the Arabs belies the sympathy for the Arabs. If not sympathetic for the Arabs, then they hate their fellow Jews' sovereignty.

    How Israel is closed to Arab goods is not stated. Some years back, there were scandals over food from the P.A. being too laden with pesticides or otherwise spoiled.

    As for labor, Israel is awash in illegal aliens itself, and has no need for chancing the entry of terrorists from the P.A.. Let the P.A. eradicate terrorism, instead of fostering it, and then Mr. Eldar may raise the question.

    In view of the P.A. seeking Israel's destruction, with popular support, should Israel and Israelis in the Territories allow any enemy population to work or live in their areas?


    Russia's President Medvedev met with the head of Hamas in Damascus. Medvedev and Turkey's President Abdullah Gul met with each other in Turkey. Both urged Israel to negotiate with Hamas as well as Fatah. Pres. Gul said that if Israel wants to unite the Palestinian Authority, it should include Hamas in negotiations.

    The Israeli Foreign Ministry condemned Medvedev's hypocrisy in urging another country to work with terrorists, while his own fights Chechen terrorists Arutz-7, 5/13/10).

    Actually, they all are hypocrites. Turkey has had a terrible experience with Kurdish terrorists, but, like Russia, it doesn't mind terrorists fighting someone else. Their objection to terrorism is like the Arabs, only when it affects them. It is not an ethical objection on principle.

    For apparent but mistaken expediency, Israel, like the U.S., works with one set of terrorists, Fatah in the PLO, but not with Hamas. What hypocrisy! Both organizations promote terrorist against Israel, which both want to destroy.

    Israel was unwise in ever taking up with the PLO, but at least the original agreements in 1993 pledged to end terrorism. How many years of PLO violation of that pledge, and how many years of PLO encouragement and commission of terrorism does it take before Israel concludes the PLO does not want genuine peace and is too barbaric to deal with? Years ago, Israel should have declared the peace process a farce, because holy war dominates the Palestinian Arabs.


    Syria has been granted observer status in the World Trade Organization, a step toward membership.

    Jordanian professional organizations are publishing lists of companies that normalize with Israel and buy its products. The lists are designed to shame the listed.

    Russia is investing in construction of a nuclear power plant in Turkey (IMRA, 5/12/10).

    Apparently, the World Trade Organization no longer believes in free trade, Syria being a boycotter of Israel. Jordan shows the meaning of peace agreements with Israel. Turkey, perhaps the new Iran, will learn half the technology it needs for developing nuclear weapons.


    A female college student in Saudi Arabia fell ill. Faculty summoned the Red Crescent Society. Then it barred the medics, because they were men.

    Saudis believe it inappropriate for men to treat women patients. Saudis also believe it inappropriate for women to be medics. Besides, they also believe it inappropriate for women to drive, even ambulances. Besides, it would be inappropriate for women medics to ride with male drivers [although many thousands of foreign men are hired to drive Saudi women]. They can't take a chance on having a female medic in the back with a male patient, while a man drives in the cab. No, an attempt to recruit women would not be acceptable there.

    Men consider the job beneath them, getting messy while seeing people in distress. Where there were 1,000 vacancies in emergency medical services, only 100 men applied.

    While the Saudis argued over whether to let the medics in, the college student died, her honor and that of the faculty preserved (IMRA, 5/12/10).

    So much work is beneath the dignity of Saudi Arabians, who expect the government to support them one way or the other, that millions of them do not work; foreigners are hired in their stead. The Saudi government keeps announcing plans to "Saudify" the work force, but employers keep hiring foreigners. Jordan also has a much higher proportion of foreign workers, than in, say, the U.S..

    Fellow Americans, do you want your female relatives treated like Saudi females? Is so, accept the jihadist attempt to impose Islamic law in the States.

    Palestinian Arabs used to claim that their ailing people died at Israeli roadblocks. Any such deaths were not Israel's fault. Sick people always were given preference at roadblocks, but instead of asking, taxis carrying the patients used to turn back, suspiciously. Strange that they insist on a right to have Israeli hospitals save their lives when they weren't murdering Israelis. Now that we find that conservative Islamic standards cause untold numbers of women in Saudi Arabia and in Afghanistan to die, will there be even half the complaints against those Muslim barbarities as there is slander against Israel, which treats many Palestinian Authority Arabs free?


    Palestinian Authority (P.A.) TV told the Jews to depart from Israel and return to Europe and Ethiopia, their real homelands. The broadcaster accused the Jews of stealing "Palestinian land."

    A children's program showed a map of Israel and the P.A. combined under the P.A. flag. No Israel! This is common fare.

    Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told visiting U.S. envoy, Lt. General Paul J. Selva, checking compliance with the Road Map, that the P.A. engages in all sorts of non-compliant "incitement" against Israel. He included the boycott recently announced by the P.A., the P.A. attempt to block Israel's admittance to OECD, encouraging popular violence, and naming places after "mass-murderers of innocent civilians" (IMRA, 5/12/10).

    He should add such TV programs to the list. Such indoctrination gives the Arabs something to fight for.

    One would think that Christians, who know that the Land of Israel is the Jewish homeland, and Jews however liberal, would be disgusted with the constant and increasing Muslim Arab fabrication of history. This disgust should translate into skepticism about the other jihadist claims. But where is a sense of honesty in those who let such false remarks and indoctrination pass unchallenged?

    Can't blame too many Westerners, for their media filter out most such news. When it is reported, readers filter out its meaning and implication. The implication is continued war. Repetition of the defamation mocks U.S. peace efforts.

    Arab antisemitism, no longer entirely religious, has taken a racist cast. Thus Muslim Arab preachers depict Jews as inherently evil, though there is nothing in Judaism or Jewish culture to back that up. [The Muslim Arab record of aggression, mass-murder, and oppression should not be a source of pride for anyone.] There is, against the Jewish people, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but that was written about something else and forged into an antisemitic document by the Czar's police. There also is Mein Kampf, the autobiography of the Nazi leader, a book almost as popular among the Arabs as the other one. It is the raving of a maniacal aggressor, who murdered about 10 million people and caused a world war that killed millions more. Some Arab case!

    Race should be determined by genetics, not accusations. Genetic studies have shown the Jews to be primarily from the Mideast, though naturally there has been some intermarriage. This finding is supported by numerous archaeological digs. How to the Arabs deal with ancient Jewish artifacts? Destroy them when possible, deny their existence when impossible.

    The concept of "Palestinian land" is never defined. For about 1,900 years, the area had Turkish rulers, then British, then the League of Nations divided the Turkish Empire, liberating the Arabs and allotting a small piece of land to the Jewish people, in view of their "historical connection" to the land. How could the League of Nations have been mistaken about that, in those days when Zionism was almost powerless but its case was recognized by the civilized world?

    Then what is "Palestinian land?" Apparently it means land that well after the founding of Israel, Arabs on it decided that they are a separate nationality. On the other hand, the PLO Covenant also admits they remain of the Arab nation. Self-contradictions do not embarrass supporters of jihad.

    Will the media and State Dept. keep telling us that the Palestinian Arabs want a two-state solution?


    Here is a balanced objection to the hatred and intimidation, signed by dozens of U.C. Irvine faculty members. I quote the statement in full, to show its reasonableness.

    "We, faculty at the University of California — Irvine, are deeply disturbed about activities on campus that foment hatred against Jews and Israelis. The troubling events over the past few years include the painting of swastikas in university buildings, the Star of David depicted as akin to a swastika, a statement (by a speaker repeatedly invited by the Muslim Student Union) that the Zionist Jew is a party of Satan, a statement by another MSU speaker that the Holocaust was God's will, the tearing down of posters placed by the student group Anteaters for Israel, and the hacking of their web site. Some community members, students, and faculty indeed feel intimidated, and at times even unsafe."

    "Some of these actions are protected by the First Amendment and in no way do we want to limit freedom of speech. We welcome open dialog among all members of the UCI community. We respect and value our Muslim colleagues, including those members of the MSU who support and encourage open dialog and civility on campus. At the same time, we take issue with hate-promoting actions that we find unacceptable. They run counter to the peaceful co-existence and civility that are essential to a university environment. Actions that demonize and derogate others, such as the previous events that have occurred on our campus noted above, have contributed to UCI's developing a growing reputation as a center of hate and intolerance. Our campus deserves better." (via e-mail from Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York and which initiated the focus on intolerance at that campus, 5/13/10.)

    Freedom of speech has been abused there. The Islams bigotry is no better than that of the old Ku Klux Klan. Both are extremist. Is the MSU trying to demonstrate that there is no difference between moderate and radical Islam?

    Some of the actions are not protected by the First Amendment. When will those who commit them be disciplined?

    In the interest of multi-culturalism, should our universities let themselves become deserts of Islamo-fascism? Where is the line between normal disagreement about U.S. policies and a fascist approach that is so un-American as to be subversive?


    EU agencies, New Israel Fund, Ford Foundation, and Open Society subsidize an NGO called Ir Amim, which blames Israel for lack of peace and champions Arab policy on Jerusalem.

    "Ir Amim produced Jerusalem Moments films. David Horovitz, editor of the Jerusalem Post, commented that this film series 'contained just about every imaginable one-sided, context-deficient, unbalanced misrepresentation of Israel rolled into one nasty package.... a relentless Palestinian Israel-bashing, interspersed with near-relentless Israeli Israel-bashing.'"

    For examples: "Expansion of the Israeli presence is an act of sabotage against the city's political future ... this process of accelerated Judaization and Israelization in East Jerusalem intensifies the points of friction between two hostile populations." (Ir Amim Update, October 2009)

    "Israel continues to exploit its superior power in order to try to determine what 'reasonable' borders are, thus emptying the negotiations of any practical significance." (Ir Amim Report, December 2008)

    "This marks a significant unilateral Israeli action to pre-judge and de-rail a negotiated agreement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in Jerusalem."
    (Ir Amim Alert, November 2008)

    Use this URL to read the full Ir Amim Factsheet http://server1.streamsend.com/streamsend/clicktracker.php? cd=7464&ld=3&md=247&ud=f44ab95cdcdccaa5aac7f3f6f6 81d6e2&url=http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ ir_amim_european_funded_political_lobbying_on_jerusalem
    (IMRA, 5/12/10 from NGO Monitor).

    What does Ir Amin mean, "expansion of the Israeli presence?" The Arabs have built more houses in Jerusalem than Jews, in recent years. The Arab presence is expanding proportionately. What does it mean, "two hostile populations?" The hostility is all on the jihadist side.

    What does it mean, Israel tries to determine the borders? Both sides have policies on borders and build houses. So one-sided is Ir Amim, that it perceives only Jewish building as trying to determine borders. What about Arab building?

    NGO monitor did not state what Ir Amim meant by "unilateral Israel action" to de-rail a negotiated agreement. At that time, the Arabs refused to negotiate. Israel asked the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) to stop violating its agreements to eradicate terrorism and cease inciting to violence against Israel. More recently, although Israel had not agreed not to build houses for Jews in annexed parts of Jerusalem, the P.A. refused to negotiate unless Israel stopped. That is a unilateral Arab action to pre-judge and de-rail a negotiation process.

    Is this viciousness what the liberal Europeans intend to cultivate? Do donors to New Israel Fund know what viciousness their contributions underwrite?


    A Gaza fisherman claims that an Egyptian corvette rammed his fishing boat, near Egypt, knocking his father into the water. Then, the son says, the corvette kept ramming his father until dead, rather than rescuing him. He said this has happened before (IMRA, 5/12/10).

    This report is not independently confirmed.


    Two Palestinian Authority (P.A.) Arabs on a TV show questioned the sense of immediately prohibiting Arab workers in Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria. They thought that first, alternatives should be found for the 25,000-30,000 Arabs who work in them.

    A P.A. official said those 25,000 are no different from the 250,000 unemployed in the P.A. (IMRA, 5/12/10).


    The U.S. relies primarily upon technical systems to detect terrorism. Europe relies primarily upon human intelligence agents and contacts.

    France claims it can better discover plots before they get carried out. The U.S. needs to build up its contacts within communities of people likeliest to commit terrorism. Those communities know who their weak links are, whom Islamists try to recruit.

    The U.S. is more tolerant of Islamist web sites, citing First Amendment rights (IMRA, 5/12/10).

    Recently I reported that the U.S. government came to a similar conclusion. The CIA was decimated and browbeaten, until it became largely ineffective. The U.S. would be wise to employ all types of methods.

    Radical Islamic propaganda can envelop followers in criminal/war conspiracy more readily than traditional subversives. Therefore, the broad interpretation of First Amendment rights is not realistic, in the standard of "clear and present danger," in dealing with jihad.


    Indonesia seems to be holding radical Islam at bay. The jihadists have gone on the defensive, as Muslim community leaders denounce them and governments track them down and arrest them.

    For a while, the radical movement grew and became menacing (IMRA, 5/12/10).

    Wouldn't it be nice if Muslim community leaders in the U.S. denounced radical Muslims here? The major Muslim organizations in the U.S. defend radical Islam.


    The Taliban warned farmers that the U.S. would eradicate their poppy crop. Now a mysterious disease has reduced output significantly.

    Actually, the U.S., as we reported, had given up efforts to destroy the crop, as more likely to alienate farmers. But farmers blame the U.S..

    Nobody knows whether the disease is from fungus, virus, or aphids.

    The crop reduction has had the effect of raising prices 60%. The drug dealers are making more money than before (IMRA, 5/12/10 from the New York Times).

    By that measure and conspiracy theory, the Taliban must have introduced the disease.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Susana K-M, May 13 2010.

    This was published in Aish.Com with permission from The Simon Wiesenthal Center


    Lie #1: Israel was created by European guilt over the Nazi Holocaust. Why should Palestine pay the price?

    Three thousand years before the Holocaust, before there was a Roman Empire, Israel's kings and prophets walked the streets of Jerusalem. The whole world knows that Isaiah did not speak his prophesies from Portugal, nor Jeremiah his lamentations from France. Revered by its people, Jerusalem is mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures 600 times — but not once in the Koran. Throughout its 2,000-year exile there was continuous Jewish presence in the Holy Land, with the modern rebirth of Israel beginning in the 1800s. Reclamation of the largely vacant land by pioneering Zionists blossomed into a Jewish majority long before the onset of Nazism.

    After the Holocaust, nearly 200,000 Shoah survivors found haven in the Jewish State, created by a two-thirds vote of the UN in 1947. Soon 800,000 Jews fleeing persecution in Arab countries arrived. In ensuing decades, Israel absorbed a million immigrants from the Soviet Union and thousands of Ethiopian Jews. Today, far from being a vestige of European guilt or colonialism, Israel is a diverse, cosmopolitan society, fulfilling the age-old dream of a people's journey and 'Return to Zion' — their ancient homeland.

    Lie #2: Had Israel withdrawn to its June 1967 borders, peace would have come long ago.

    Since 1967, Israel has repeatedly conceded, "land for peace." Following Egyptian President Sadat's historic 1977 visit to Jerusalem and the Camp David Peace Accords, Israel withdrew from the vast Sinai Peninsula and has been at peace with Egypt ever since.

    In 1995, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel but neither the Palestinians nor 21 other Arab states have done so. In 1993,Israel signed the Oslo Accords ceding administrative control of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority (formerly the PLO). The PA never fulfilled its promise to end propaganda attacks and drop the Palestinian National Charter's call for Israel's destruction.

    In 2000, Prime Minister Barak offered Yasser Arafat full sovereignty over 97% of the West Bank, a corridor to Gaza, and a capitol in the Arab section of Jerusalem. Arafat said NO. In 2008, PA President Abbas nixed virtually the same offer from Prime Minister Olmert. In 2005, Prime Minister Sharon unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. Taken over by terrorist Hamas, they turned dismantled Jewish communities into launching sites for suicide bombers and 8,000+ rockets into Israel proper. In 2010, Prime Minister Netanyahu renewed offers of unconditional negotiations leading to a Palestinian State, but Palestinians refused, demanding more unilateral Israeli concessions, including a total freeze of all Israeli construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

    Lie #3: Israel is the main stumbling block to achieving a Two-State solution.

    The Palestinians themselves are the only stumbling block to achieving a Two-State solution. With whom should Israel negotiate? With President Abbas, who, for four years, has been barred by Hamas from visiting 1.5 million constituents in Gaza? With his Palestinian Authority, which continues to glorify terrorists and preaches hate in its educational system and the media? With Hamas, whose Iranian-backed leaders deny the Holocaust and use fanatical Jihadist rhetoric to call for Israel's destruction?

    Today, it is a simple fact that while the State of Israel is prepared to recognize all Arab States, secular or Muslim, these states adamantly refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish State and demand "the right of return" of five million so-called Palestinian "refugees" — a sure guarantee for Israel's demise.

    Lie #4: Nuclear Israel not Iran is the greatest threat to peace and stability.

    Though never acknowledged by Jerusalem, it is generally assumed that Israel has nuclear weapons. But unlike Pakistan, India, and North Korea, Israel never conducted nuclear tests. In 1973, when its very survival was imperiled by the surprise Egyptian-Syrian Yom Kippur attack, many assumed Israel would use nuclear weapons — but it did not. Contrary to public condemnations, many Arab leaders privately express relief that Israeli nuclear deterrence exists. While Israel has never threatened anyone, Tehran's mullahs daily threaten to "wipe Israel from the map." The U.S. and Europe can afford to wait to see what the Iranian regime does with its nuclear ambitions. But Israel cannot. She is on the front lines and remembers every day the price the Jewish people paid for not taking Hitler at his word. Israel is not prepared to sacrifice another six million Jews on the altar of the world's indifference.

    Lie #5: Israel is an Apartheid State deserving of International Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaigns.

    On both sides of the Atlantic, church groups, academics and unions are leading deceitful and often anti-Semitic boycott campaigns demonizing what they call the Jewish "apartheid" State.

    The truth is that unlike apartheid South Africa, Israel is a democratic state. Its 20% Arab minority enjoys all the political, economic and religious rights and freedoms of citizenship, including electing members of their choice to the Knesset (Parliament). Israeli Arabs and Palestinians have standing before Israel's Supreme Court. In contrast, no Jew may own property in Jordan, no Christian or Jew can visit Islam's holiest sites in Saudi Arabia.

    Lie #6: Plans to build 1,600 more homes in East Jerusalem prove Israel is 'Judaizing' the Holy City.

    Enemies of Israel, exploit this phony issue. Jerusalem is holy to three great faiths. Its diverse population includes a Jewish majority with Muslim and Christian minorities. Since 1967, for the first time in history, there is full freedom of religion for all faiths in Jerusalem. Muslim and Christian religious bodies administer their own holy sites. Indeed, the Waqf is allowed to control Jerusalem's Temple Mount, even though it rests on Solomon's temple and is holy to BOTH Jews and Muslims.

    Meanwhile, Jerusalem's municipality must meet the needs of a growing modern city. The unfortunately-timed announcement during U.S. Vice President Biden's visit of 1,600 new apartments in Ramat Shlomo, was not about Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, but for a long established, heavily populated Jewish neighborhood in Northern Jerusalem, where 250,000 Jews live (about the same population as Newark, NJ.) — an area that will never be relinquished by Israel.

    Lie #7: Israel policies endanger U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    The charge that Israel endangers U.S. troops in Iraq or the AF-Pak region is an update of the old "stab in the back" lie that Jews always betray their own friends, and the libel spouted by Henry Ford and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that "Jews are the father of all wars."

    U.S. General Petraeus has stated he considers Israel a great strategic asset for the U.S. and that his earlier remarks linking the safety of U.S. troops in the region to an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal (which 2/3 of Israelis want) were taken out of context. A resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would benefit everyone, including the U.S. But an imposed return to what Abba Eban called "1967 Auschwitz borders" would endanger Israel's survival and ultimately be disastrous for American interests and credibility in the world.

    Lie #8: Israeli policies are the cause of worldwide anti-Semitism.

    From the Inquisition to the pogroms, to the 6,000,000 Jews murdered by the Nazis, history proves that Jew-hatred existed on a global scale before the creation of the State of lsrael. In 2010, it would still exist even if Israel had never been created. For example, one poll indicates 40% of Europeans blame the recent global economic crisis on "Jews having too much economic power," a canard that has nothing to do with Israel.

    The unsettled Palestinian-Israeli dispute aggravates Muslim-Jewish tensions, but it is not the root cause. During World War II, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a notorious Jew-hater, helped the Nazis organize the 13th SS Division, made up of Muslims. Unfortunately, in addition to respectful references to Jewish patriarchs and prophets, the Koran also contains virulent anti-Semitic stereotypes that are widely invoked by Islamist extremists, including Hezbollah (whose agents blew up the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in 1994), to justify murdering Jews worldwide. The disappearance of Israel would only further embolden violent Jew-haters everywhere.

    Lie #9: Israel, not Hamas, is responsible for the "humanitarian catastrophe" in Gaza. Goldstone was right when he charged that Israel was guilty of war crimes against civilians.

    The Goldstone Report on Israel's defensive war against Hamas-controlled Gaza, from which 8,000 rockets were fired after Israel's unilateral withdrawal in 2005, is a biased product of the UN's misnamed Human Rights Council. The UNHRC is obsessed with false anti-Israel resolutions. It refuses to address grievous human rights abuses in Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and beyond. Faced with similar attacks, every UN member-state including the U.S. and Canada would surely have acted more aggressively than the IDF did in Gaza.

    Yet, Richard Goldstone, a South African Jewish jurist, signed a document prepared by investigators whose main qualification was rabid anti-Israel bias. He accepted every anonymous libel against the IDF. But he insisted that hearings in Gaza be televised, guaranteeing that fearful Palestinians would never testify about Hamas' use of civilians as human shields and their hiding of weapons in mosques and hospitals. Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz denounced Goldstone's Report as a modern "blood libel" accusing Israeli soldiers of crimes they never committed.

    Lie #10: The only hope for peace is a single, bi-national state, eliminating the Jewish State of Israel.

    The One-State solution, promoted by academics, is a non-starter because it would eliminate the Jewish homeland. However, the current pressures on Israel are equally dangerous. In effect, the world is demanding that Israel, the size of New Jersey, shrink farther by accepting a Three-State solution: a PA state on the West Bank and a Hamas terrorist state controlling 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza. All this, as Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon, stockpiles 50,000 rockets, threatening northern and central Israel's main population centers.

    In 2010, most Middle East experts believe that the only hope for enduring peace is two states with defined final borders. But too many diplomats, pundits, academics and church leaders ignore the fact that current polls show that while most Israelis favor a Two-State solution, most Palestinians continue to oppose it.

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

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Rock Peters, May 13, 2010.

    "While America slept
    Sharia steadily crept
    one day Americans were awaken
    and found their liberties had all been taken
    every sensible warnings they had ignored
    in liberal complacency they just snored
    now the U.S. Constitution is no more
    in it's place is Sharia Law
    and today in the USA women can be publicly beaten
    if their husbands catch them cheatin'
    Gays are prosecuted
    and legally executed
    the Statue of Liberty was destroyed
    gone is the "American Freedom" we once enjoyed
    churches and synagogues are now torched and burned
    because Americans never learned
    it was too late
    before they discovered
    the Islamic religion really teaches HATE
    and the truth that:
    Islam is NOT the "religion of peace!"

    "The Muslim terrorists have hijacked Islam. Islam is a religion of peace! was the liberal 'politically correct spin' after the September 11th Muslim terrorist attack on America. Amazingly after all the inhuman, horrific and murderous acts Muslim terrorists have committed since 9/11 this insanity and vile corruption of the truth remains unchanged.

    The blatant falsehood and extraordinary ignorance of a "non-violent Islam" is still being preached and promoted unabashedly in a 'droning mindless mantra' by the Left to this day.

    Barack Obama proclaims the peaceful virtues of Islam as he globe trots around the world. In speeches, Obama refers to the Koran as the 'holy Koran." The Koran is holy? Nothing could be further from the truth. I have read the Koran many, many times and I have read Hitler's "Mein Kampf " and the Muslim Koran is without a doubt a much more violent and evil book than the Nazi's, Mien Kampf. If America and the West continue to commit suicide by surrendering our Judeo-Christian values to liberal moral relativism and multi-culturalism and we persist in allowing the undermining of our society and culture by the infiltration of "creeping Sharia" it will result in the end of Western Civilization. Islamic law means dhimmitude for non-Muslims which will make the Dark Ages seem like the Renaissance. Wake up America and join the resistance at WWW.GODSAVEUSA.COM

    Yours in Liberty,
    Rock Peters
    Knights of Columbus

    Rock Peters is an author, songwriter, poet and patriot. His multimedia website — www.godsaveusa.com — is dedicated to fighting Muslim terrorism. It is both factual and attractive. Contact him at rockpeters@aol.com

    To Go To Top

    Posted by Hana Levi Julian, May 13, 2010.

    Controversial U.S. Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference Rashad Hussein is back in the spotlight over an interview published Monday in the English-language edition of the Arabic international daily Asharq Al-Awsat.

    Commentary magazine's political columnist Jennifer Rubin first raised the alarm over the interview, charging in an Internet post that in a "foreign, Arabic publication," Hussein "skewers, without justification or basis in fact, the Bush administration."

    However, within 24 hours, Rubin was posting an update to inform readers that "no doubt alarmed by the Rashad Hussein interview, the State Department has provided a transcript and an audio recording of the interview that departs in significant respects from the interview that was printed at the Asharq Al-Awsat website."

    The Arab version was indeed quite different than that which the U.S. Government later provided to Commentary, leading Rubin to "wonder whether there is utility in speaking to such publications if the words of our special envoy are simply converted to anti-American and pro-Palestinian talking points."

    It was not clear whether the State Department would ask for a retraction.

    Numerous political commentators pounced on the transcript posted on the Asharq Al-Awsat website, which called into question the issue of who the American Muslim envoy was really representing. A sampling from the site follows:

    Q: Do you think it will be easy to overcome the hostility in the Islamic world towards certain US policies, especially in light of the actions taken under the previous US administration?

    A: We are concerned about this but we are determined to move forward, without looking to the past and the negative effects of this, in order to erase the hostile feelings caused by the administration of former President George W. Bus